| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 48:30:39 |
| Calls: | 422 |
| Files: | 1,024 |
| Messages: | 90,422 |
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >referencing older incidents.
And itÆs as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip >flopped about.
Roger Merriman
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip >> flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >>> referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to >>> get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip >>> flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other >organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more
of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as >heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA itÆs less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year >for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 11 May 2025 02:17:26 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >>>> referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to >>>> get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip >>>> flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other >> organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more
of event than a race where its much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as >> hes rather banned from the UCI events as youd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thats seems to be an US >> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA its less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year >> for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
1) Not all college sports fall under NCAA rules.
2) K-12 athletics are not NCAA
3) The glsen website I posted is about K-12 athletics where there are
males competing in women's sports.
4) You seem to be getting your news from media that doesn't tell you
all the facts.
or...
5) Maybe you are Ok with males competing in women's athletics and
taking trophies, medals, fame, and scholarships that rightfully belong
to women, and with males being allowed parade around naked in K-12
restrooms and locker rooms and spy on girls who are undressing and
showering, and, like Krygowski, you just want everyone to stop talking
about it.
If that's the case, you should understand that the issue going to be addressed and debated until common sense prevails.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >>> referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to >>> get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip >>> flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s seems to be an US way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s less yes or no but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-
swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the
media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only
because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly
discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems
to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by
allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and
have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and
other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB
race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s seems to be an US >> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s less yes or no >> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this
year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic politics
thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal- fight
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-
swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the >>>>>>> media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only
because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly
discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems
to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by
allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and
have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >>> name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year, >>> was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion >>> and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and
other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more >>> of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the >>> UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB
race as
heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs seems to be an US >>> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA itÆs less yes or no >>> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/ >>>
year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic politics
thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-defiance-
of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights-
athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal-
fight
Can you give a national count of frequency? Are we looking at a really
big molehill, or is it a tiny one that's being made into a mountain?
And will we ever get back to our discussion of Republican congress
members fighting DOGE for their own constituents?
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-
future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their
cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender"
athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party
promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to
compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane,
but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be
openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily
mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for
this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would
happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some
places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the
same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling
anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone
levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some
things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to
comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s
seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s
less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its
regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion-policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in-defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-
s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-
backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal- fight
Can you give a national count of frequency? Are we looking
at a really big molehill, or is it a tiny one that's being
made into a mountain?
And will we ever get back to our discussion of Republican
congress members fighting DOGE for their own constituents?
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 11 May 2025 02:17:26 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>>>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>>>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>>>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >>>>> referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to >>>>> get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >>> name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year, >>> was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion >>> and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other >>> organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more >>> of event than a race where it?s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the >>> UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as >>> he?s rather banned from the UCI events as you?d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that?s seems to be an US >>> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it?s less yes or no >>> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year >>> for US.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/ >>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
1) Not all college sports fall under NCAA rules.
Kinda irrelevant really.
2) K-12 athletics are not NCAA
Trumps executive directive order wasnÆt just for NICAA but they updated
their policy. It applies or not to both equally.
3) The glsen website I posted is about K-12 athletics where there are
males competing in women's sports.
That was the one using a decade of data and some very iffy data such as >listing Sportives as competitive and so on.
See about youÆre being played and just copy/pasting from your echo chamber.
4) You seem to be getting your news from media that doesn't tell you
all the facts.
or...
5) Maybe you are Ok with males competing in women's athletics and
taking trophies, medals, fame, and scholarships that rightfully belong
to women, and with males being allowed parade around naked in K-12
restrooms and locker rooms and spy on girls who are undressing and
showering, and, like Krygowski, you just want everyone to stop talking
about it.
It is blown out of proportion, in terms of the numbers and the news media
ie handful of people, and the fact that the trend is for bans or heavily >restricted participation for transgender athletes.
Ie the argument has been won. Yes this being the internet and the algorithm >like hate and so, it will magnify folks with minority views ie donÆt
believe everything you see on the internet and so on.
If that's the case, you should understand that the issue going to be
addressed and debated until common sense prevails.
You seem to think Frank and myself are pro trans participation in sports >which demonstrates your not listening or understanding.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >>>> referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to >>>> get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip >>>> flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other >> organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as >> he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s seems to be an US >> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s less yes or no >> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year >> for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights-athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal-fight
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>>>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>>>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>>>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >>>>> referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to >>>>> get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >>> name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year, >>> was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion >>> and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other >>> organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more >>> of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the >>> UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as >>> heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs seems to be an US >>> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA itÆs less yes or no >>> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year >>> for US.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/ >>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
I was vaguely aware of it though College sports in the US isnÆt something
we have here bar perhaps the Boat race!
Looks to be a lot of political heat and probably legal money to fight over
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights-athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal-fight
a handful of people.
Not that I donÆt get that women are affected after all, one of my riding >buddies used to occasionally encounter a trans woman at womenÆs races that >she felt wasnÆt a fair race, as they had the kick to sprint to the line.
Which IÆd agree with even if I can see being excluded if one is trans would >be hard, though I donÆt see a viable alternative.
But like Frank I think as itÆs a contentious issue and would be better if
the heat was taken down. But itÆs used as distraction and so on.
Roger Merriman
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>>>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>>>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>>>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >>>>> referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to >>>>> get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >>> name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year, >>> was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion >>> and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other >>> organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more >>> of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the >>> UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as >>> he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s seems to be an US >>> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s less yes or no >>> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year >>> for US.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/ >>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
I was vaguely aware of it though College sports in the US isn’t something we have here bar perhaps the Boat race!
Looks to be a lot of political heat and probably legal money to fight over
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights-athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal-fight
a handful of people.
Not that I don’t get that women are affected after all, one of my riding buddies used to occasionally encounter a trans woman at women’s races that she felt wasn’t a fair race, as they had the kick to sprint to the line.
Which I’d agree with even if I can see being excluded if one is trans would be hard, though I don’t see a viable alternative.
But like Frank I think as it’s a contentious issue and would be better if the heat was taken down. But it’s used as distraction and so on.
Roger Merriman
On 5/11/2025 2:46 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>>>>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>>>>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>>>>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >>>>>> referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >>>> name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year, >>>> was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion >>>> and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other >>>> organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more >>>> of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the >>>> UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as >>>> heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs seems to be an US >>>> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA itÆs less yes or no >>>> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/ >>>>
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
I was vaguely aware of it though College sports in the US isnÆt something
we have here bar perhaps the Boat race!
Looks to be a lot of political heat and probably legal money to fight over >> a handful of people.
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights-athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal-fight
Not that I donÆt get that women are affected after all, one of my riding
buddies used to occasionally encounter a trans woman at womenÆs races that >> she felt wasnÆt a fair race, as they had the kick to sprint to the line.
Which IÆd agree with even if I can see being excluded if one is trans would >> be hard, though I donÆt see a viable alternative.
But like Frank I think as itÆs a contentious issue and would be better if
the heat was taken down. But itÆs used as distraction and so on.
Roger Merriman
It is not 'a distraction' to women who legitimately win
their events and yet despite their training. effort and
perseverance are denied the medal.
On 5/11/2025 11:51 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/ transgender-rights-
athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against- backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-
legal- fight
Can you give a national count of frequency? Are we looking at a really
big molehill, or is it a tiny one that's being made into a mountain?
And will we ever get back to our discussion of Republican congress
members fighting DOGE for their own constituents?
Two different questions.
On Sun, 11 May 2025 16:18:31 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/11/2025 2:46 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >>>>> name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year, >>>>> was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion >>>>> and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more >>>>> of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the >>>>> UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as
heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs seems to be an US >>>>> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA itÆs less yes or no >>>>> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations. >>>>>
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/ >>>>>
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
I was vaguely aware of it though College sports in the US isnÆt something >>> we have here bar perhaps the Boat race!
Looks to be a lot of political heat and probably legal money to fight over >>> a handful of people.
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights-athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal-fight
Not that I donÆt get that women are affected after all, one of my riding >>> buddies used to occasionally encounter a trans woman at womenÆs races that >>> she felt wasnÆt a fair race, as they had the kick to sprint to the line. >>>
Which IÆd agree with even if I can see being excluded if one is trans would >>> be hard, though I donÆt see a viable alternative.
But like Frank I think as itÆs a contentious issue and would be better if >>> the heat was taken down. But itÆs used as distraction and so on.
Roger Merriman
It is not 'a distraction' to women who legitimately win
their events and yet despite their training. effort and
perseverance are denied the medal.
Don't birth still list sex at birth?
It is not 'a distraction' to women who legitimately win their events and
yet despite their training. effort and perseverance are denied the medal.
On 5/11/2025 2:46 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>>>>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>>>>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>>>>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >>>>>> referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >>>> name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year, >>>> was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion >>>> and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other >>>> organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more >>>> of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the >>>> UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as >>>> he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s less yes or no >>>> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/ >>>>
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
I was vaguely aware of it though College sports in the US isn’t something >> we have here bar perhaps the Boat race!
Looks to be a lot of political heat and probably legal money to fight over >> a handful of people.
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights-athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal-fight
Not that I don’t get that women are affected after all, one of my riding >> buddies used to occasionally encounter a trans woman at women’s races that >> she felt wasn’t a fair race, as they had the kick to sprint to the line. >>
Which I’d agree with even if I can see being excluded if one is trans would
be hard, though I don’t see a viable alternative.
But like Frank I think as it’s a contentious issue and would be better if >> the heat was taken down. But it’s used as distraction and so on.
Roger Merriman
It is not 'a distraction' to women who legitimately win
their events and yet despite their training. effort and
perseverance are denied the medal.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 11 May 2025 02:17:26 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>>>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>>>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>>>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >>>>> referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to >>>>> get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >>> name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year, >>> was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion >>> and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other >>> organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more >>> of event than a race where its much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the >>> UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as >>> hes rather banned from the UCI events as youd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thats seems to be an US >>> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA its less yes or no >>> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year >>> for US.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/ >>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
1) Not all college sports fall under NCAA rules.
Kinda irrelevant really.
2) K-12 athletics are not NCAA
Trumps executive directive order wasn’t just for NICAA but they updated their policy. It applies or not to both equally.
3) The glsen website I posted is about K-12 athletics where there are
males competing in women's sports.
That was the one using a decade of data and some very iffy data such as listing Sportives as competitive and so on.
See about you’re being played and just copy/pasting from your echo chamber.
4) You seem to be getting your news from media that doesn't tell you
all the facts.
or...
5) Maybe you are Ok with males competing in women's athletics and
taking trophies, medals, fame, and scholarships that rightfully belong
to women, and with males being allowed parade around naked in K-12
restrooms and locker rooms and spy on girls who are undressing and
showering, and, like Krygowski, you just want everyone to stop talking
about it.
It is blown out of proportion, in terms of the numbers and the news media
ie handful of people, and the fact that the trend is for bans or heavily restricted participation for transgender athletes.
Ie the argument has been won. Yes this being the internet and the algorithm like hate and so, it will magnify folks with minority views ie don’t believe everything you see on the internet and so on.
If that's the case, you should understand that the issue going to be
addressed and debated until common sense prevails.
You seem to think Frank and myself are pro trans participation in sports which demonstrates your not listening or understanding.
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-
swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the
media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only
because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly
discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems
to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by
allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and
have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and
other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB
race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s seems to be an US >> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s less yes or no >> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this
year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic politics
thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal- fight
On 5/11/2025 11:51 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes- future-
swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the >>>>>>>> media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only
because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly
discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems >>>>>> to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by
allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and
have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is
just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this
year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same
conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and
other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are
more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply
with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB
race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s seems to be
an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s less yes
or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic- inclusion-
policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect
this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic politics
thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only- state-in-
defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/ transgender-rights-
athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against- backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-
legal- fight
Can you give a national count of frequency? Are we looking at a really
big molehill, or is it a tiny one that's being made into a mountain?
And will we ever get back to our discussion of Republican congress
members fighting DOGE for their own constituents?
Two different questions.
Men in women's spaces is a serious concern to enough people to have established rules against that. The usual argument and conflict over
policy is IMHO a good thing regardless of which viewpoint one adopts.
Who here is in favor of Congressmen shielding waste and fraud? Not me, certainly. Not also that resistance to reform is in both parties.
On 5/11/2025 2:46 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-
swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the >>>>>>>> media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only
because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly
discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems >>>>>> to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by
allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and
have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is
just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this
year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same
conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and
other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are
more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply
with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB
race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s seems to be
an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s less yes
or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-
policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect
this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
I was vaguely aware of it though College sports in the US isn’t something >> we have here bar perhaps the Boat race!
Looks to be a lot of political heat and probably legal money to fight
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-
defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights-
athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-
legal-fight
over
a handful of people.
Not that I don’t get that women are affected after all, one of my riding >> buddies used to occasionally encounter a trans woman at women’s races
that
she felt wasn’t a fair race, as they had the kick to sprint to the line. >>
Which I’d agree with even if I can see being excluded if one is trans
would
be hard, though I don’t see a viable alternative.
But like Frank I think as it’s a contentious issue and would be better if >> the heat was taken down. But it’s used as distraction and so on.
Roger Merriman
It is not 'a distraction' to women who legitimately win their events and
yet despite their training. effort and perseverance are denied the medal.
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-
future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their
cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender"
athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party
promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to
compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane,
but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be
openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily
mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for
this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would
happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some
places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the
same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling
anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone
levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some
things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to
comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s
seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s
less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its
regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion-policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in-defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-
s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-
backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal- fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has larger
issues to deal with. If the people of Maine want to allow
it, they'll elect representatives that represent their
views. If it's as much of an egregious issue as the
magatards are making it out to be, the people of maine will
express their opinion in the voting booth.
On 5/11/2025 2:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/11/2025 11:51 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-
athletes- future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their
cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender"
athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their
party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men
to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane,
but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to
be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the
daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for
this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would
happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some
places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached
the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling
anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low
testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly
some things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has
to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s
seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA
it’s less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its
regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion- policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in- defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-
women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-
backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes- legal- fight
Can you give a national count of frequency? Are we
looking at a really big molehill, or is it a tiny one
that's being made into a mountain?
And will we ever get back to our discussion of Republican
congress members fighting DOGE for their own constituents?
Two different questions.
Men in women's spaces is a serious concern to enough
people to have established rules against that. The usual
argument and conflict over policy is IMHO a good thing
regardless of which viewpoint one adopts.
Who here is in favor of Congressmen shielding waste and
fraud? Not me, certainly. Not also that resistance to
reform is in both parties.
It's not two different questions in the context that the
chairperson of the house DOGE committee is supposed to focus
on find waste in government and is instead using her bully
pulpit to rant out her homophobia.
If Congress wants to set up committees to investigate
transgendered participation in sports, fine. The DOGE
committee is no place for that.
On 5/11/2025 5:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/11/2025 2:46 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-
athletes-future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their
cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender"
athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their
party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men
to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane,
but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to
be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the
daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for
this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would
happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some
places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached
the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling
anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low
testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly
some things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has
to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s
seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA
it’s less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its
regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion- policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
I was vaguely aware of it though College sports in the US
isn’t something
we have here bar perhaps the Boat race!
Looks to be a lot of political heat and probably legal
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in- defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-
women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-
backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes- legal-fight
money to fight over
a handful of people.
Not that I don’t get that women are affected after all,
one of my riding
buddies used to occasionally encounter a trans woman at
women’s races that
she felt wasn’t a fair race, as they had the kick to
sprint to the line.
Which I’d agree with even if I can see being excluded if
one is trans would
be hard, though I don’t see a viable alternative.
But like Frank I think as it’s a contentious issue and
would be better if
the heat was taken down. But it’s used as distraction and
so on.
Roger Merriman
It is not 'a distraction' to women who legitimately win
their events and yet despite their training. effort and
perseverance are denied the medal.
Then to proper path for that is to appeal to whatever
sanctioning body manages the event. Certainly, legal action
isn't outof the question, but DOGE should be concentrating
on GE, not MTGs homophobic rants.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/11/2025 2:46 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:That seems to be mostly confined to the US with its as ever more
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >>>>> name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year, >>>>> was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion >>>>> and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more >>>>> of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the >>>>> UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as
heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs seems to be an US >>>>> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA itÆs less yes or no >>>>> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations. >>>>>
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/ >>>>>
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
I was vaguely aware of it though College sports in the US isnÆt something >>> we have here bar perhaps the Boat race!
Looks to be a lot of political heat and probably legal money to fight over >>> a handful of people.
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights-athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal-fight
Not that I donÆt get that women are affected after all, one of my riding >>> buddies used to occasionally encounter a trans woman at womenÆs races that >>> she felt wasnÆt a fair race, as they had the kick to sprint to the line. >>>
Which IÆd agree with even if I can see being excluded if one is trans would >>> be hard, though I donÆt see a viable alternative.
But like Frank I think as itÆs a contentious issue and would be better if >>> the heat was taken down. But itÆs used as distraction and so on.
Roger Merriman
It is not 'a distraction' to women who legitimately win
their events and yet despite their training. effort and
perseverance are denied the medal.
complicated way of doing things! In UK France etc single national body for >national cycling which has banned transgender athletes in anything >competitive, are non ranked events such as UK Sportives where you get a
name and your time that they can participate in which is fair enough.
The ôDistractionö is the media focus plus the occasional witch hunt see the >boxer from last Olympics no credible evidence she was trans, some very >dubious facts from the Russian federation who where banned due to well
being corrupt! And yet it ran for months.
IÆm slightly surprised that the US organisers havenÆt moved like European >organisations and indeed international organisations have.
Possibly trying trying to rigidly comply with equality acts, and kinda >missing the point that sometimes you will need to exclude people, sport by >its nature does tend to do so to create a fair (within reason) system.
Sadly due to numbers isnÆt enough trans athletes to create their own >competitions.
Roger Merriman
On 5/11/2025 8:23 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 11 May 2025 02:17:26 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>>>>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>>>>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>>>>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >>>>>> referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >>>> name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year, >>>> was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion >>>> and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other >>>> organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more >>>> of event than a race where it?s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the >>>> UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as >>>> he?s rather banned from the UCI events as you?d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that?s seems to be an US >>>> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it?s less yes or no >>>> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/ >>>>
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
1) Not all college sports fall under NCAA rules.
Kinda irrelevant really.
2) K-12 athletics are not NCAA
Trumps executive directive order wasnÆt just for NICAA but they updated
their policy. It applies or not to both equally.
3) The glsen website I posted is about K-12 athletics where there are
males competing in women's sports.
That was the one using a decade of data and some very iffy data such as
listing Sportives as competitive and so on.
See about youÆre being played and just copy/pasting from your echo chamber. >>
4) You seem to be getting your news from media that doesn't tell you
all the facts.
or...
5) Maybe you are Ok with males competing in women's athletics and
taking trophies, medals, fame, and scholarships that rightfully belong
to women, and with males being allowed parade around naked in K-12
restrooms and locker rooms and spy on girls who are undressing and
showering, and, like Krygowski, you just want everyone to stop talking
about it.
It is blown out of proportion, in terms of the numbers and the news media
ie handful of people, and the fact that the trend is for bans or heavily
restricted participation for transgender athletes.
Ie the argument has been won. Yes this being the internet and the algorithm >> like hate and so, it will magnify folks with minority views ie donÆt
believe everything you see on the internet and so on.
If that's the case, you should understand that the issue going to be
addressed and debated until common sense prevails.
You seem to think Frank and myself are pro trans participation in sports
which demonstrates your not listening or understanding.
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 to all of that Roger. The right wing is being told by their echo
chamber that this is a major issue that demands major attention away
from actual problems that affect millions of americans, when it's an >insignificant issue being used as a wedge and a distraction.
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-
swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the >>>>>>> media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only
because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly
discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems
to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by
allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and
have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a >>> name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year, >>> was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion >>> and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and
other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more >>> of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the >>> UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB
race as
heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs seems to be an US >>> way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA itÆs less yes or no >>> but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/ >>>
year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic politics
thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-state-in-defiance-
of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/transgender-rights-
athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-legal-
fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has larger issues to
deal with. If the people of Maine want to allow it, they'll elect >representatives that represent their views. If it's as much of an
egregious issue as the magatards are making it out to be, the people of
maine will express their opinion in the voting booth.
On 5/12/2025 8:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 5:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/11/2025 2:46 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women- athletes-future- >>>>>>>>>> swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in >>>>>>>>>> the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is >>>>>>>>>> that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting >>>>>>>>>> the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only >>>>>>>>>> because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly >>>>>>>>>> discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail
seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by
allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and >>>>>>>> have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is >>>>>> just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating
this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice. >>>>>>
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same
conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels,
and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things
are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply
with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB >>>>>> race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s seems to >>>>>> be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s less yes >>>>>> or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations. >>>>>>
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic- inclusion-
policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect
this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
I was vaguely aware of it though College sports in the US isn’t
something
we have here bar perhaps the Boat race!
Looks to be a lot of political heat and probably legal money to
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only- state-in-
defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls- women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/ transgender-
rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against- backdrop-of-maines-
high-stakes- legal-fight
fight over
a handful of people.
Not that I don’t get that women are affected after all, one of my
riding
buddies used to occasionally encounter a trans woman at women’s
races that
she felt wasn’t a fair race, as they had the kick to sprint to the
line.
Which I’d agree with even if I can see being excluded if one is
trans would
be hard, though I don’t see a viable alternative.
But like Frank I think as it’s a contentious issue and would be
better if
the heat was taken down. But it’s used as distraction and so on.
Roger Merriman
It is not 'a distraction' to women who legitimately win their events
and yet despite their training. effort and perseverance are denied
the medal.
Then to proper path for that is to appeal to whatever sanctioning body
manages the event. Certainly, legal action isn't outof the question,
but DOGE should be concentrating on GE, not MTGs homophobic rants.
Your argument doesn't account for Title IX civil rights protections in funding.
And yes I agree that Ms Green should not be the sole decision maker. She
is, in fact, not.
On 5/12/2025 9:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 5:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/11/2025 2:46 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women- athletes-future- >>>>>>>>>>> swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in >>>>>>>>>>> the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is >>>>>>>>>>> that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting >>>>>>>>>>> the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only >>>>>>>>>>> because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly >>>>>>>>>>> discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail >>>>>>>>> seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by >>>>>>>>> allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and >>>>>>>>> have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is >>>>>>> just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating
this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice. >>>>>>>
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same
conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything. >>>>>>>
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, >>>>>>> and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things >>>>>>> are more
of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply >>>>>>> with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB >>>>>>> race as
heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs seems to >>>>>>> be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA itÆs less yes >>>>>>> or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations. >>>>>>>
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic- inclusion- >>>>>>>> policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect >>>>>>> this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
I was vaguely aware of it though College sports in the US isnÆt
something
we have here bar perhaps the Boat race!
Looks to be a lot of political heat and probably legal money to
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only- state-in-
defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls- women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/ transgender-
rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against- backdrop-of-maines-
high-stakes- legal-fight
fight over
a handful of people.
Not that I donÆt get that women are affected after all, one of my
riding
buddies used to occasionally encounter a trans woman at womenÆs
races that
she felt wasnÆt a fair race, as they had the kick to sprint to the
line.
Which IÆd agree with even if I can see being excluded if one is
trans would
be hard, though I donÆt see a viable alternative.
But like Frank I think as itÆs a contentious issue and would be
better if
the heat was taken down. But itÆs used as distraction and so on.
Roger Merriman
It is not 'a distraction' to women who legitimately win their events
and yet despite their training. effort and perseverance are denied
the medal.
Then to proper path for that is to appeal to whatever sanctioning body
manages the event. Certainly, legal action isn't outof the question,
but DOGE should be concentrating on GE, not MTGs homophobic rants.
Your argument doesn't account for Title IX civil rights protections in
funding.
It does to the extent that specific women's sports programs are set up. >Transgendered participation in these programs doesn't seem to violate
the intent of the act.
And yes I agree that Ms Green should not be the sole decision maker. She
is, in fact, not.
On 5/12/2025 8:34 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes- future-
swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the >>>>>>>> media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only
because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly
discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems >>>>>> to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by
allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and
have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is
just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this
year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same
conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and
other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are
more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply
with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB
race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s seems to be
an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s less yes
or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic- inclusion-
policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect
this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic politics
thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only- state-in-
defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/ transgender-rights-
athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against- backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-
legal- fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has larger issues to
deal with. If the people of Maine want to allow it, they'll elect
representatives that represent their views. If it's as much of an
egregious issue as the magatards are making it out to be, the people
of maine will express their opinion in the voting booth.
I'm inclined to your Libertarian viewpoint, but we've already
established that Alabama can't impose a poll tax and Arkansas cannot segregate their public schools and Montana must enforce national highway speed limits.
On 5/12/2025 9:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:34 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes- future- >>>>>>>>> swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the >>>>>>>>> media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that >>>>>>>>> they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the >>>>>>>>> ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only
because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly >>>>>>>>> discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems >>>>>>> to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by
allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and >>>>>>> have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is
just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this
year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same
conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and >>>>> other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are >>>>> more
of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply
with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB
race as
heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs seems to be
an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA itÆs less yes
or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations. >>>>>
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic- inclusion-
policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect
this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic politics
thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only- state-in-
defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/ transgender-rights-
athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against- backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes-
legal- fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has larger issues to
deal with. If the people of Maine want to allow it, they'll elect
representatives that represent their views. If it's as much of an
egregious issue as the magatards are making it out to be, the people
of maine will express their opinion in the voting booth.
I'm inclined to your Libertarian viewpoint, but we've already
established that Alabama can't impose a poll tax and Arkansas cannot
segregate their public schools and Montana must enforce national highway
speed limits.
oh please....
Well, first off, Montana doesn't enforce national highway speed limits >because there is no national highway speed limit. Bill Clinton signed >legislation repealing that law in 1995.
https://highways.dot.gov/media/13911
"The Federal Government does NOT set or enforce speed limits;
this authority belongs to the State and local agencies that have
jurisdiction over the road."
At any rate, both poll taxes and school segregation affect vastly more
people with far more deleterious effects than the miniscule number of >transgendered people participating in sports programs, title IX
sponsored or not.
I understand and empathize with those who are taking activist positions
on the issue. I have no problem with people who want some sort of
legislation controlling if, how, or when transgender people can
participate in sports program that do not align with their birth sex.
The issue is that this is _not_ an issue of national importance that
should be distracting from the greater problems affecting the US.
On 5/12/2025 9:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 5:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/11/2025 2:46 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-
athletes-future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their
cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender"
athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their
party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men
to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the
wane, but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs
to be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at
least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the
daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame
for this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this
would happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening
some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached
the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is
cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low
testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly
some things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race
has to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but
that’s seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA
it’s less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and
its regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion- policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
I was vaguely aware of it though College sports in the
US isn’t something
we have here bar perhaps the Boat race!
Looks to be a lot of political heat and probably legal
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in- defiance-of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-
women-s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender- rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-
against- backdrop-of-maines- high-stakes- legal-fight
money to fight over
a handful of people.
Not that I don’t get that women are affected after all,
one of my riding
buddies used to occasionally encounter a trans woman at
women’s races that
she felt wasn’t a fair race, as they had the kick to
sprint to the line.
Which I’d agree with even if I can see being excluded
if one is trans would
be hard, though I don’t see a viable alternative.
But like Frank I think as it’s a contentious issue and
would be better if
the heat was taken down. But it’s used as distraction
and so on.
Roger Merriman
It is not 'a distraction' to women who legitimately win
their events and yet despite their training. effort and
perseverance are denied the medal.
Then to proper path for that is to appeal to whatever
sanctioning body manages the event. Certainly, legal
action isn't outof the question, but DOGE should be
concentrating on GE, not MTGs homophobic rants.
Your argument doesn't account for Title IX civil rights
protections in funding.
It does to the extent that specific women's sports programs
are set up. Transgendered participation in these programs
doesn't seem to violate the intent of the act.
And yes I agree that Ms Green should not be the sole
decision maker. She is, in fact, not.
On 5/12/2025 9:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:34 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-
athletes- future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their
cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender"
athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their
party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men
to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane,
but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to
be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the
daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for
this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would
happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some
places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached
the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling
anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low
testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly
some things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has
to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s
seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA
it’s less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its
regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion- policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in- defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-
women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-
backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes- legal- fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has
larger issues to deal with. If the people of Maine want
to allow it, they'll elect representatives that represent
their views. If it's as much of an egregious issue as the
magatards are making it out to be, the people of maine
will express their opinion in the voting booth.
I'm inclined to your Libertarian viewpoint, but we've
already established that Alabama can't impose a poll tax
and Arkansas cannot segregate their public schools and
Montana must enforce national highway speed limits.
oh please....
Well, first off, Montana doesn't enforce national highway
speed limits because there is no national highway speed
limit. Bill Clinton signed legislation repealing that law in
1995.
https://highways.dot.gov/media/13911
"The Federal Government does NOT set or enforce speed limits;
this authority belongs to the State and local agencies that
have
jurisdiction over the road."
At any rate, both poll taxes and school segregation affect
vastly more people with far more deleterious effects than
the miniscule number of transgendered people participating
in sports programs, title IX sponsored or not.
I understand and empathize with those who are taking
activist positions on the issue. I have no problem with
people who want some sort of legislation controlling if,
how, or when transgender people can participate in sports
program that do not align with their birth sex.
The issue is that this is _not_ an issue of national
importance that should be distracting from the greater
problems affecting the US.
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/12/2025 9:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:34 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women- athletes- future- >>>>>>>>>> swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in >>>>>>>>>> the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is >>>>>>>>>> that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting >>>>>>>>>> the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in >>>>>>>>>> women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only >>>>>>>>>> because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly >>>>>>>>>> discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail
seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And its as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by
allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and >>>>>>>> have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the >>>>>>> USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is >>>>>> just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating
this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice. >>>>>>
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same
conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels,
and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things
are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply
with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB >>>>>> race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s seems to >>>>>> be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it’s less yes >>>>>> or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations. >>>>>>
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic- inclusion-
policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect
this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic politics
thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only- state-in-
defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls- women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/ transgender-
rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against- backdrop-of-maines-
high-stakes- legal- fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has larger issues
to deal with. If the people of Maine want to allow it, they'll elect
representatives that represent their views. If it's as much of an
egregious issue as the magatards are making it out to be, the people
of maine will express their opinion in the voting booth.
I'm inclined to your Libertarian viewpoint, but we've already
established that Alabama can't impose a poll tax and Arkansas cannot
segregate their public schools and Montana must enforce national
highway speed limits.
oh please....
Well, first off, Montana doesn't enforce national highway speed limits
because there is no national highway speed limit. Bill Clinton signed
legislation repealing that law in 1995.
https://highways.dot.gov/media/13911
"The Federal Government does NOT set or enforce speed limits;
this authority belongs to the State and local agencies that have
jurisdiction over the road."
At any rate, both poll taxes and school segregation affect vastly more
people with far more deleterious effects than the miniscule number of
transgendered people participating in sports programs, title IX
sponsored or not.
I understand and empathize with those who are taking activist
positions on the issue. I have no problem with people who want some
sort of legislation controlling if, how, or when transgender people
can participate in sports program that do not align with their birth sex.
The issue is that this is _not_ an issue of national importance that
should be distracting from the greater problems affecting the US.
Right, the stupid 55 rule is no more but Montana lost the argument after
it was initiated.
[note for political junkies: National 55 was dreamed up by a Republican
and sent to its deserved end by a Democrat.]
The principle in current thought is that States' rights cannot supersede individual civil rights nor national policy. The validity and limits of that principle are fraught.
This is an inherent friction point:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/
versus:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/12/2025 9:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:34 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-
athletes- future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their
cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender"
athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their
party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men
to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane,
but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to
be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the
daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for
this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would
happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some
places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached
the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling
anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low
testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly
some things are more
of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has
to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs
seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA
itÆs less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its
regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion- policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in- defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-
women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-
backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes- legal- fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has
larger issues to deal with. If the people of Maine want
to allow it, they'll elect representatives that represent
their views. If it's as much of an egregious issue as the
magatards are making it out to be, the people of maine
will express their opinion in the voting booth.
I'm inclined to your Libertarian viewpoint, but we've
already established that Alabama can't impose a poll tax
and Arkansas cannot segregate their public schools and
Montana must enforce national highway speed limits.
oh please....
Well, first off, Montana doesn't enforce national highway
speed limits because there is no national highway speed
limit. Bill Clinton signed legislation repealing that law in
1995.
https://highways.dot.gov/media/13911
"The Federal Government does NOT set or enforce speed limits;
this authority belongs to the State and local agencies that
have
jurisdiction over the road."
At any rate, both poll taxes and school segregation affect
vastly more people with far more deleterious effects than
the miniscule number of transgendered people participating
in sports programs, title IX sponsored or not.
I understand and empathize with those who are taking
activist positions on the issue. I have no problem with
people who want some sort of legislation controlling if,
how, or when transgender people can participate in sports
program that do not align with their birth sex.
The issue is that this is _not_ an issue of national
importance that should be distracting from the greater
problems affecting the US.
Right, the stupid 55 rule is no more but Montana lost the
argument after it was initiated.
[note for political junkies: National 55 was dreamed up by a
Republican and sent to its deserved end by a Democrat.]
The principle in current thought is that States' rights
cannot supersede individual civil rights nor national
policy. The validity and limits of that principle are fraught.
This is an inherent friction point:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/
versus:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
[note for political junkies: National 55 was dreamed up by a RepublicanRight. At an end-of-semester department lunch event, two of our right
and sent to its deserved end by a Democrat.]
On 5/12/2025 12:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Right. At an end-of-semester department lunch event, two of our right
[note for political junkies: National 55 was dreamed up by a Republican
and sent to its deserved end by a Democrat.]
wing faculty members were adamantly blaming Carter for the 55 MPH
national limit. I was positive it was instituted by Nixon, and said so, explaining that was a time my wife had returned to school and we had
paid attention to how 55 affected both her driving time and gas mileage.
Eventually, one of those two guys returned to the office, checked his
facts via the web, and apologized to me, saying I was correct.
That was a behavior almost never seen in this discussion group.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:29:35 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
+1 to all of that Roger. The right wing is being told by their echo
chamber that this is a major issue that demands major attention away
from actual problems that affect millions of americans, when it's an
insignificant issue being used as a wedge and a distraction.
Nobody says it's a major issue, but...
On Mon, 12 May 2025 11:30:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/12/2025 9:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:34 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-
athletes- future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their
cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender"
athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their
party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men
to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane,
but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to
be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the
daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for
this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would
happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some
places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached
the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling
anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low
testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly
some things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has
to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s
seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA
it’s less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its
regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion- policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in- defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-
women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-
backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes- legal- fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has
larger issues to deal with. If the people of Maine want
to allow it, they'll elect representatives that represent
their views. If it's as much of an egregious issue as the
magatards are making it out to be, the people of maine
will express their opinion in the voting booth.
I'm inclined to your Libertarian viewpoint, but we've
already established that Alabama can't impose a poll tax
and Arkansas cannot segregate their public schools and
Montana must enforce national highway speed limits.
oh please....
Well, first off, Montana doesn't enforce national highway
speed limits because there is no national highway speed
limit. Bill Clinton signed legislation repealing that law in
1995.
https://highways.dot.gov/media/13911
"The Federal Government does NOT set or enforce speed limits;
this authority belongs to the State and local agencies that
have
jurisdiction over the road."
At any rate, both poll taxes and school segregation affect
vastly more people with far more deleterious effects than
the miniscule number of transgendered people participating
in sports programs, title IX sponsored or not.
I understand and empathize with those who are taking
activist positions on the issue. I have no problem with
people who want some sort of legislation controlling if,
how, or when transgender people can participate in sports
program that do not align with their birth sex.
The issue is that this is _not_ an issue of national
importance that should be distracting from the greater
problems affecting the US.
Right, the stupid 55 rule is no more but Montana lost the
argument after it was initiated.
[note for political junkies: National 55 was dreamed up by a
Republican and sent to its deserved end by a Democrat.]
The principle in current thought is that States' rights
cannot supersede individual civil rights nor national
policy. The validity and limits of that principle are fraught.
This is an inherent friction point:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/
versus:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
The "let men in women's sports and locker rooms" issue is not a
popular position. If left to to the states to decide, it's likely to
put a blue tint on some wokie red states. Either way, it's a negative
for the Democrats.
Is the Democrat Party going to split off the far left wingers into
their own political party? They could call themselves the Wokicrats,
Wokies for short, and their color could be chartreuse.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:29:35 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
+1 to all of that Roger. The right wing is being told by their echo
chamber that this is a major issue that demands major attention away >>>from actual problems that affect millions of americans, when it's an
insignificant issue being used as a wedge and a distraction.
Nobody says it's a major issue, but...
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide
from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence. What a
dupe.
On 5/12/2025 12:48 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 11:30:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/12/2025 9:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:34 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-
athletes- future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their
cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender"
athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their
party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men
to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane,
but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to
be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the
daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for
this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would
happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some
places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached
the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling
anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low
testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly
some things are more
of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has
to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs
seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA
itÆs less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its
regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion- policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in- defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-
women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-
backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes- legal- fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has
larger issues to deal with. If the people of Maine want
to allow it, they'll elect representatives that represent
their views. If it's as much of an egregious issue as the
magatards are making it out to be, the people of maine
will express their opinion in the voting booth.
I'm inclined to your Libertarian viewpoint, but we've
already established that Alabama can't impose a poll tax
and Arkansas cannot segregate their public schools and
Montana must enforce national highway speed limits.
oh please....
Well, first off, Montana doesn't enforce national highway
speed limits because there is no national highway speed
limit. Bill Clinton signed legislation repealing that law in
1995.
https://highways.dot.gov/media/13911
"The Federal Government does NOT set or enforce speed limits;
this authority belongs to the State and local agencies that
have
jurisdiction over the road."
At any rate, both poll taxes and school segregation affect
vastly more people with far more deleterious effects than
the miniscule number of transgendered people participating
in sports programs, title IX sponsored or not.
I understand and empathize with those who are taking
activist positions on the issue. I have no problem with
people who want some sort of legislation controlling if,
how, or when transgender people can participate in sports
program that do not align with their birth sex.
The issue is that this is _not_ an issue of national
importance that should be distracting from the greater
problems affecting the US.
Right, the stupid 55 rule is no more but Montana lost the
argument after it was initiated.
[note for political junkies: National 55 was dreamed up by a
Republican and sent to its deserved end by a Democrat.]
The principle in current thought is that States' rights
cannot supersede individual civil rights nor national
policy. The validity and limits of that principle are fraught.
This is an inherent friction point:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/ >>>
versus:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
The "let men in women's sports and locker rooms" issue is not a
popular position. If left to to the states to decide, it's likely to
put a blue tint on some wokie red states. Either way, it's a negative
for the Democrats.
Is the Democrat Party going to split off the far left wingers into
their own political party? They could call themselves the Wokicrats,
Wokies for short, and their color could be chartreuse.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Well, there's the nub, as I mentioned.
Yes there's the 10th Amendment but then again any
administration, and Congress, have some latitude as regards
funding vis-a-vis policy alignment. It's not a simple question.
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:29:35 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
+1 to all of that Roger. The right wing is being told by
their echo
chamber that this is a major issue that demands major
attention away
from actual problems that affect millions of americans,
when it's an insignificant issue being used as a wedge
and a distraction.
Nobody says it's a major issue, but...
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him
to hide from discussing the current administration's crazy
incompetence. What a dupe.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 13:45:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 12:48 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 11:30:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/12/2025 9:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:34 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-
athletes- future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their
cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender"
athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their
party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men
to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane,
but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to
be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least >>>>>>>>>>>> consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the
daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for
this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would
happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some
places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached
the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling
anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low
testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly
some things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has
to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s
seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA
it’s less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its
regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion- policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in- defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-
women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-
backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes- legal- fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has
larger issues to deal with. If the people of Maine want
to allow it, they'll elect representatives that represent
their views. If it's as much of an egregious issue as the
magatards are making it out to be, the people of maine
will express their opinion in the voting booth.
I'm inclined to your Libertarian viewpoint, but we've
already established that Alabama can't impose a poll tax
and Arkansas cannot segregate their public schools and
Montana must enforce national highway speed limits.
oh please....
Well, first off, Montana doesn't enforce national highway
speed limits because there is no national highway speed
limit. Bill Clinton signed legislation repealing that law in
1995.
https://highways.dot.gov/media/13911
"The Federal Government does NOT set or enforce speed limits;
this authority belongs to the State and local agencies that
have
jurisdiction over the road."
At any rate, both poll taxes and school segregation affect
vastly more people with far more deleterious effects than
the miniscule number of transgendered people participating
in sports programs, title IX sponsored or not.
I understand and empathize with those who are taking
activist positions on the issue. I have no problem with
people who want some sort of legislation controlling if,
how, or when transgender people can participate in sports
program that do not align with their birth sex.
The issue is that this is _not_ an issue of national
importance that should be distracting from the greater
problems affecting the US.
Right, the stupid 55 rule is no more but Montana lost the
argument after it was initiated.
[note for political junkies: National 55 was dreamed up by a
Republican and sent to its deserved end by a Democrat.]
The principle in current thought is that States' rights
cannot supersede individual civil rights nor national
policy. The validity and limits of that principle are fraught.
This is an inherent friction point:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/ >>>>
versus:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
The "let men in women's sports and locker rooms" issue is not a
popular position. If left to to the states to decide, it's likely to
put a blue tint on some wokie red states. Either way, it's a negative
for the Democrats.
Is the Democrat Party going to split off the far left wingers into
their own political party? They could call themselves the Wokicrats,
Wokies for short, and their color could be chartreuse.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Well, there's the nub, as I mentioned.
Yes there's the 10th Amendment but then again any
administration, and Congress, have some latitude as regards
funding vis-a-vis policy alignment. It's not a simple question.
It's kind of strange seeing the Democrats favor state's rights. But
it's still un unpopular issue. If left to the states to decide, and
they legislate for wokeness, there's going to be consequences coming
from their voters... which might have effects on the US Congress.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/12/2025 3:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 13:45:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 12:48 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 11:30:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/12/2025 9:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:34 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-
athletes- future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their
cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender"
athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their
party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men
to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least >>>>>>>>>>>>> consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the
daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for
this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would
happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some
places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached
the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling
anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low
testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly
some things are more
of event than a race where itÆs much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has
to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
heÆs rather banned from the UCI events as youÆd expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but thatÆs
seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA
itÆs less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its
regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion- policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in- defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-
women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-
backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes- legal- fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has
larger issues to deal with. If the people of Maine want
to allow it, they'll elect representatives that represent
their views. If it's as much of an egregious issue as the
magatards are making it out to be, the people of maine
will express their opinion in the voting booth.
I'm inclined to your Libertarian viewpoint, but we've
already established that Alabama can't impose a poll tax
and Arkansas cannot segregate their public schools and
Montana must enforce national highway speed limits.
oh please....
Well, first off, Montana doesn't enforce national highway
speed limits because there is no national highway speed
limit. Bill Clinton signed legislation repealing that law in
1995.
https://highways.dot.gov/media/13911
"The Federal Government does NOT set or enforce speed limits;
this authority belongs to the State and local agencies that
have
jurisdiction over the road."
At any rate, both poll taxes and school segregation affect
vastly more people with far more deleterious effects than
the miniscule number of transgendered people participating
in sports programs, title IX sponsored or not.
I understand and empathize with those who are taking
activist positions on the issue. I have no problem with
people who want some sort of legislation controlling if,
how, or when transgender people can participate in sports
program that do not align with their birth sex.
The issue is that this is _not_ an issue of national
importance that should be distracting from the greater
problems affecting the US.
Right, the stupid 55 rule is no more but Montana lost the
argument after it was initiated.
[note for political junkies: National 55 was dreamed up by a
Republican and sent to its deserved end by a Democrat.]
The principle in current thought is that States' rights
cannot supersede individual civil rights nor national
policy. The validity and limits of that principle are fraught.
This is an inherent friction point:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/ >>>>>
versus:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
The "let men in women's sports and locker rooms" issue is not a
popular position. If left to to the states to decide, it's likely to
put a blue tint on some wokie red states. Either way, it's a negative
for the Democrats.
Is the Democrat Party going to split off the far left wingers into
their own political party? They could call themselves the Wokicrats,
Wokies for short, and their color could be chartreuse.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Well, there's the nub, as I mentioned.
Yes there's the 10th Amendment but then again any
administration, and Congress, have some latitude as regards
funding vis-a-vis policy alignment. It's not a simple question.
It's kind of strange seeing the Democrats favor state's rights. But
it's still un unpopular issue. If left to the states to decide, and
they legislate for wokeness, there's going to be consequences coming
from their voters... which might have effects on the US Congress.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The Democrat Party and States' Rights go back a long way.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:10:05 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 3:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 13:45:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 12:48 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 11:30:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/12/2025 9:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:34 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/11/2025 10:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2025 9:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.marca.com/en/more-
sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-
athletes- future- swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cohorts in the media
want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their
party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only because of
the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be openly discussed
until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the
daily mail seems to be
referencing older incidents.
And it?s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for >>>>>>>>>>>>> this, by allowing to
get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would >>>>>>>>>>>>> happen and have flip
flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some >>>>>>>>>>>> places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to
continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or
stuff that is just a
name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes
participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the
right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached
the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling
anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low
testosterone levels, and other
organisations will differ in their approach, clearly
some things are more
of event than a race where it’s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has
to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the
Leadville MTB race as
he’s rather banned from the UCI events as you’d expect! >>>>>>>>>>>
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that’s >>>>>>>>>>> seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA
it’s less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its
regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-
inclusion- policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came
into effect this year
for US.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I can appreciate that UK news may not cover US domestic
politics thoroughly but that is in fact true:
Generally:
https://afn.net/education/2025/02/24/maine-isn-t-only-
state-in- defiance- of-trump-s-ban-on-males-in-girls-
women- s-sports/
Specifically this week:
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-08/
transgender-rights- athletics-bills-draw-crowd-against-
backdrop-of-maines-high-stakes- legal- fight
Then let Maine handle it. The federal government has
larger issues to deal with. If the people of Maine want
to allow it, they'll elect representatives that represent
their views. If it's as much of an egregious issue as the
magatards are making it out to be, the people of maine
will express their opinion in the voting booth.
I'm inclined to your Libertarian viewpoint, but we've
already established that Alabama can't impose a poll tax
and Arkansas cannot segregate their public schools and
Montana must enforce national highway speed limits.
oh please....
Well, first off, Montana doesn't enforce national highway
speed limits because there is no national highway speed
limit. Bill Clinton signed legislation repealing that law in
1995.
https://highways.dot.gov/media/13911
"The Federal Government does NOT set or enforce speed limits;
this authority belongs to the State and local agencies that
have
jurisdiction over the road."
At any rate, both poll taxes and school segregation affect
vastly more people with far more deleterious effects than
the miniscule number of transgendered people participating
in sports programs, title IX sponsored or not.
I understand and empathize with those who are taking
activist positions on the issue. I have no problem with
people who want some sort of legislation controlling if,
how, or when transgender people can participate in sports
program that do not align with their birth sex.
The issue is that this is _not_ an issue of national
importance that should be distracting from the greater
problems affecting the US.
Right, the stupid 55 rule is no more but Montana lost the
argument after it was initiated.
[note for political junkies: National 55 was dreamed up by a
Republican and sent to its deserved end by a Democrat.]
The principle in current thought is that States' rights
cannot supersede individual civil rights nor national
policy. The validity and limits of that principle are fraught.
This is an inherent friction point:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/ >>>>>>
versus:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
The "let men in women's sports and locker rooms" issue is not a
popular position. If left to to the states to decide, it's likely to >>>>> put a blue tint on some wokie red states. Either way, it's a negative >>>>> for the Democrats.
Is the Democrat Party going to split off the far left wingers into
their own political party? They could call themselves the Wokicrats, >>>>> Wokies for short, and their color could be chartreuse.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Well, there's the nub, as I mentioned.
Yes there's the 10th Amendment but then again any
administration, and Congress, have some latitude as regards
funding vis-a-vis policy alignment. It's not a simple question.
It's kind of strange seeing the Democrats favor state's rights. But
it's still un unpopular issue. If left to the states to decide, and
they legislate for wokeness, there's going to be consequences coming
from their voters... which might have effects on the US Congress.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The Democrat Party and States' Rights go back a long way.
but not so much in the last 50 years.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide
from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence. What
a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-red-sea-lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:29:35 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
+1 to all of that Roger. The right wing is being told by their echo
chamber that this is a major issue that demands major attention away
from actual problems that affect millions of americans, when it's an
insignificant issue being used as a wedge and a distraction.
Nobody says it's a major issue, but...
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide
from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence. What
a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-red-sea-lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide
from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence. What
a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d Trump
administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-red-sea-lost-
another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? I'd
think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience drunken Fox
network personality would require quite a bit of time to noticeably
affect the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in other
cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away randomly at
every possible government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative incompetence - one >example among many.
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I think it's a bit of a stretch to blame incidents like
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:29:35 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
+1 to all of that Roger. The right wing is being told
by their echo
chamber that this is a major issue that demands major
attention away
from actual problems that affect millions of americans,
when it's an insignificant issue being used as a wedge
and a distraction.
Nobody says it's a major issue, but...
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows
him to hide from discussing the current administration's
crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-
red-sea-lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
these on whichever administration is in office. The recent
incidents on the USS Truman for example may have been
incompetence or some other failure of equipment that wasn't
_reasonably_ foreseeable or preventable. Without access to
the Root Cause Failure Analysis we can only speculate. As
much as I consider the existence of trump in the US white
house to be an existential threat to the US, he had nothing
to do with what happened on the USS Truman.
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows
him to hide from discussing the current administration's
crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-
red-sea-lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment of, say,
a low experience drunken Fox network personality would
require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect the
competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to
pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications,
to hack away randomly at every possible government agency,
firing then rehiring hundreds or thousands of competent
workers? That's administrative incompetence - one example
among many.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 00:29:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide
from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence. What
a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d Trump
administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-red-sea-lost-
another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? I'd
think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience drunken Fox
network personality would require quite a bit of time to noticeably
affect the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in other
cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away randomly at
every possible government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative incompetence - one
example among many.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media.
It's going to take a while to correct the mistakes made by the
incompetent Biden-Harris administration, but there's been significant movement in that direction.
Thank God the majority of voters had enough sense to see that the incompetent, far left team of Harris and Walz would have continued
what Biden administration had done and worsened the condition of the
USA.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/13/2025 5:07 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I think it's a bit of a stretch to blame incidents like
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:29:35 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
+1 to all of that Roger. The right wing is being told
by their echo
chamber that this is a major issue that demands major
attention away
from actual problems that affect millions of americans,
when it's an insignificant issue being used as a wedge
and a distraction.
Nobody says it's a major issue, but...
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows
him to hide from discussing the current administration's
crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-
red-sea-lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
these on whichever administration is in office. The recent
incidents on the USS Truman for example may have been
incompetence or some other failure of equipment that wasn't
_reasonably_ foreseeable or preventable. Without access to
the Root Cause Failure Analysis we can only speculate. As
much as I consider the existence of trump in the US white
house to be an existential threat to the US, he had nothing
to do with what happened on the USS Truman.
I didn't blame either administration. I merely noted that Mr
Krygowski's term 'crazy incompetence' is quite apt. Always.
On 5/13/2025 6:05 AM, floriduh dubass wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 00:29:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide >>>>> from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence. What >>>>> a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d Trump
administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-red-sea-lost- >>>> another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? I'd
think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience drunken Fox
network personality would require quite a bit of time to noticeably
affect the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in other
cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away randomly at
every possible government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative incompetence - one >>> example among many.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media.
It's going to take a while to correct the mistakes made by the
incompetent Biden-Harris administration, but there's been significant
movement in that direction.
Thank God the majority of voters had enough sense to see that the
incompetent, far left team of Harris and Walz would have continued
what Biden administration had done and worsened the condition of the
USA.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/13/2025 5:07 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I think it's a bit of a stretch to blame incidents like these on
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:29:35 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
+1 to all of that Roger. The right wing is being told by their echo >>>>>> chamber that this is a major issue that demands major attention away >>>>>> from actual problems that affect millions of americans, when it's
an insignificant issue being used as a wedge and a distraction.
Nobody says it's a major issue, but...
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide
from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence.
What a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d Trump
administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier- red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
whichever administration is in office. The recent incidents on the USS
Truman for example may have been incompetence or some other failure of
equipment that wasn't _reasonably_ foreseeable or preventable. Without
access to the Root Cause Failure Analysis we can only speculate. As
much as I consider the existence of trump in the US white house to be
an existential threat to the US, he had nothing to do with what
happened on the USS Truman.
I didn't blame either administration. I merely noted that Mr Krygowski's
term 'crazy incompetence' is quite apt. Always.
On 5/13/2025 6:05 AM, floriduh dubass wrote:wow...talk about regurgitating rightwing magaspunk.....
On Tue, 13 May 2025 00:29:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide >>>>>> from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence. What >>>>>> a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d Trump >>>>> administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-red-sea-lost- >>>>> another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? I'd
think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience drunken Fox
network personality would require quite a bit of time to noticeably
affect the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in other >>>> cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away randomly at
every possible government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative incompetence - one >>>> example among many.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media.
It's going to take a while to correct the mistakes made by the
incompetent Biden-Harris administration, but there's been significant
movement in that direction.
Thank God the majority of voters had enough sense to see that the
incompetent, far left team of Harris and Walz would have continued
what Biden administration had done and worsened the condition of the
USA.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/13/2025 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 5:07 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I think it's a bit of a stretch to blame incidents like these on
On 5/12/2025 10:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:29:35 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
+1 to all of that Roger. The right wing is being told by their echo >>>>>>> chamber that this is a major issue that demands major attention away >>>>>>> from actual problems that affect millions of americans, when it's >>>>>>> an insignificant issue being used as a wedge and a distraction.
Nobody says it's a major issue, but...
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide >>>>> from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence.
What a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d Trump
administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier- red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
whichever administration is in office. The recent incidents on the USS
Truman for example may have been incompetence or some other failure of
equipment that wasn't _reasonably_ foreseeable or preventable. Without
access to the Root Cause Failure Analysis we can only speculate. As
much as I consider the existence of trump in the US white house to be
an existential threat to the US, he had nothing to do with what
happened on the USS Truman.
I didn't blame either administration. I merely noted that Mr Krygowski's
term 'crazy incompetence' is quite apt.á Always.
I know you didn't, there are other dupes in this forum who believe
whatever the maga propaganda machine tells them to.
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide >>>>> from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence.
What a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d Trump
administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier- red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? I'd
think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience drunken Fox
network personality would require quite a bit of time to noticeably
affect the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in
other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away
randomly at every possible government agency, firing then rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments (not only
US Federal government!)á in every administration. Hayek brilliantly
wrote on the inherent failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature,
well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large institution, and a
very large administration to run a large country. I doubt there are any >exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able to find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity, brilliance.
Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The unproductive chaos >generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems unique in our
history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane,
let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving an >astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list more, but I
think the current administration is on its way toward record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought processes.
Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide
from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence.
What a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d Trump
administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier- red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? I'd
think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience drunken Fox
network personality would require quite a bit of time to noticeably
affect the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in
other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away
randomly at every possible government agency, firing then rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments (not only
US Federal government!) in every administration. Hayek brilliantly
wrote on the inherent failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature,
well before key exemplars were born!
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of trimming
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy budget
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to
hide from discussing the current administration's crazy
incompetence. What a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d
Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft- carrier- red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration?
I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience
drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit of time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in
other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away
randomly at every possible government agency, firing then rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments (not
only US Federal government!) in every administration. Hayek
brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large bureaucracies, by
their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large institution, and
a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt there are
any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able to find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The unproductive
chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems unique in
our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully
sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving
an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list more, but I
think the current administration is on its way toward record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the- empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of trimming
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy budget
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to
hide from discussing the current administration's crazy
incompetence. What a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS >>>>>> Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d
Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft- carrier- red-sea- >>>>>> lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration?
I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience
drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit of time to >>>>> noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in
other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away
randomly at every possible government agency, firing then rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments (not
only US Federal government!)á in every administration. Hayek
brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large bureaucracies, by
their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large institution, and
a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt there are
any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able to find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your talking points? >>>
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The unproductive
chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems unique in
our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully
sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving
an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list more, but I
think the current administration is on its way toward record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission creep' outside
lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig for videos of
Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in
military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should
remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration: ISTM the point
of the article you linked is that there really were countless thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different world in the 1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler >technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers of
administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by colonies or
local government, not central government. You certainly can't pretend
that any current major nation can get by with a few thousand employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you really think
the Trump administration is as competent as any other one in recent
history? I don't, and the general run of experts (including those
working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate this crew near
the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to the wannabee >king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment of,
say, a low experience drunken Fox network personality
would require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect
the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to
pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every possible
government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!)á in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a large
country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in any large
administation you'll be able to find examples of anything -
competence, incompetence, stupidity, brilliance. Isn't "we
have one of everything" one of your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let alone
competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving an
astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list
more, but I think the current administration is on its way
toward record incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 14:18:42 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment of,
say, a low experience drunken Fox network personality
would require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect
the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to
pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every possible
government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!) in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a large
country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in any large
administation you'll be able to find examples of anything -
competence, incompetence, stupidity, brilliance. Isn't "we
have one of everything" one of your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let alone
competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving an
astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list
more, but I think the current administration is on its way
toward record incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
Krugowski's snipping is his cowardly method of avoiding issues he
can't deal with.
Am 14.05.2025 um 12:47 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 14:18:42 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment of,
say, a low experience drunken Fox network personality
would require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect
the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to
pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every possible
government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!)á in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a large
country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in any large
administation you'll be able to find examples of anything -
competence, incompetence, stupidity, brilliance. Isn't "we
have one of everything" one of your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let alone
competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving an
astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list
more, but I think the current administration is on its way
toward record incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
Krugowski's snipping is his cowardly method of avoiding issues he
can't deal with.
Can you please stop repeating the same accusations? Independent on
whether they are true or false, they are extremely boring.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of trimming
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy budget
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad >>>>>>> examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to >>>>>>>> hide from discussing the current administration's crazy
incompetence. What a dupe.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS >>>>>>> Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow >>>>>>> vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d
Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft- carrier- red-sea- >>>>>>> lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration?
I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience
drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit of time to >>>>>> noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in
other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away
randomly at every possible government agency, firing then rehiring >>>>>> hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments (not
only US Federal government!) in every administration. Hayek
brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large bureaucracies, by >>>>> their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large institution, and >>>> a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt there are
any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able to find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your talking points? >>>>
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The unproductive
chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems unique in
our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully
sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving
an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list more, but I >>>> think the current administration is on its way toward record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission creep' outside
lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig for videos of
Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in
military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should
remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration: ISTM the point
of the article you linked is that there really were countless thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different world in the 1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers of
administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by colonies or
local government, not central government. You certainly can't pretend
that any current major nation can get by with a few thousand employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you really think
the Trump administration is as competent as any other one in recent
history? I don't, and the general run of experts (including those
working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate this crew near
the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to the wannabee
king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, military enlistment
is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 14 May 2025 13:10:16 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.05.2025 um 12:47 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 14:18:42 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment of,
say, a low experience drunken Fox network personality
would require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect
the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to
pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every possible
government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!) in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a large
country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in any large
administation you'll be able to find examples of anything -
competence, incompetence, stupidity, brilliance. Isn't "we
have one of everything" one of your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let alone
competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving an
astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list
more, but I think the current administration is on its way
toward record incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
Krugowski's snipping is his cowardly method of avoiding issues he
can't deal with.
Can you please stop repeating the same accusations? Independent on
whether they are true or false, they are extremely boring.
Most accusations on Usenet are boring, including Krygowski's a few
lines up, especially the one about "Mr. Timid Tricyclist." I don't
think mine are any more boring than his.
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own
carrier group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration
in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest
failure in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment of,
say, a low experience drunken Fox network personality
would require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect
the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude
to pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every possible
government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!) in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a
large country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in
any large administation you'll be able to find examples
of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your
talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let
alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is
giving an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I
could list more, but I think the current administration
is on its way toward record incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your
thought processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a
brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-
rule-the- empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
trimming posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother
to dig for videos of Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new
taxes" or Bush II dolled up in military costume to proclaim
"Mission accomplished" but we should remember how those
worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration:
ISTM the point of the article you linked is that there
really were countless thousands of people administering it.
It was a very different world in the 1800s, far less complex
and moving at a far slower place with far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers
of administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by
colonies or local government, not central government. You
certainly can't pretend that any current major nation can
get by with a few thousand employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you
really think the Trump administration is as competent as any
other one in recent history? I don't, and the general run of
experts (including those working for Trump's first
administration) seem to rate this crew near the bottom of
the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to
the wannabee king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best
people.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 14:18:42 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment of,
say, a low experience drunken Fox network personality
would require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect
the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to
pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every possible
government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!) in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a large
country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in any large
administation you'll be able to find examples of anything -
competence, incompetence, stupidity, brilliance. Isn't "we
have one of everything" one of your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let alone
competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving an
astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list
more, but I think the current administration is on its way
toward record incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
Krugowski's snipping is his cowardly method of avoiding issues he
can't deal with. I also note that when Krygowski cannot convince
people to agree with him, which is often, he'll try to put the
disagreement burden on his opponents. His dishonest tactic is to
demand that the unconvinced people state their position, and then, ultimately, he'll demand that they defend it. It's what losers do when
their arguments fail.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of trimming
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy budget
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad >>>>>>>> examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to >>>>>>>>> hide from discussing the current administration's crazy
incompetence. What a dupe.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS >>>>>>>> Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow >>>>>>>> vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d >>>>>>>> Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft- carrier- red-sea- >>>>>>>> lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? >>>>>>> I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience
drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit of time to >>>>>>> noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest military. >>>>>>>
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in >>>>>>> other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away
randomly at every possible government agency, firing then rehiring >>>>>>> hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's administrative >>>>>>> incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments (not >>>>>> only US Federal government!)á in every administration. Hayek
brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large bureaucracies, by >>>>>> their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large institution, and >>>>> a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt there are >>>>> any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able to find >>>>> examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your talking points? >>>>>
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The unproductive
chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems unique in >>>>> our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully >>>>> sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving >>>>> an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list more, but I >>>>> think the current administration is on its way toward record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission creep' outside >>>> lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig for videos of
Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in
military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should
remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration: ISTM the point
of the article you linked is that there really were countless thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different world in the 1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers of
administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by colonies or
local government, not central government. You certainly can't pretend
that any current major nation can get by with a few thousand employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you really think
the Trump administration is as competent as any other one in recent
history? I don't, and the general run of experts (including those
working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate this crew near
the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to the wannabee >>> king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, military enlistment
is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You left out some very good news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts-topped-16-billion-in-april-a-record-that-helped-cut-the-budget-deficit.html
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year deficit
but it's the first time in decades. Let's hope for more. Mr
Jackson eliminated the entire national debt, and he was just
some hick from Tennessee without a Wharton MBA.
On 5/13/2025 10:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
any of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own
carrier group (USS Truman) in the Biden
administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest
failure in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment
of, say, a low experience drunken Fox network
personality would require quite a bit of time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's
largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude
to pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every
possible government agency, firing then rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's
administrative incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!) in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a
large country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in
any large administation you'll be able to find examples
of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of
your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let
alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is
giving an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I
could list more, but I think the current administration
is on its way toward record incompetence on multiple
fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your
thought processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a
brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-
we- rule-the- empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
of trimming posts. Of course "there are more." I won't
bother to dig for videos of Bush I saying "Read my lips:
No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in military costume to
proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should remember how
those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration:
ISTM the point of the article you linked is that there
really were countless thousands of people administering
it. It was a very different world in the 1800s, far less
complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large
numbers of administrators were at work, although perhaps
employed by colonies or local government, not central
government. You certainly can't pretend that any current
major nation can get by with a few thousand employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you
really think the Trump administration is as competent as
any other one in recent history? I don't, and the general
run of experts (including those working for Trump's first
administration) seem to rate this crew near the bottom of
the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty
to the wannabee king. That doesn't tend to bring in the
best people.
Larger Empire with more people and spread out uniquely world
wide, all run with written correspondence, paper ledgers, no
calculators and yet still in the thousands not millions. Add
in a very good score for lack of inflation, a gold-solid
value for Sterling and excellent growth. Hard to beat their
record.
One might argue, and I will, that the administrations of
Victoria's Empire was greatly more effective and efficient
than any barnacle encrusted modern state, full of
apparatchiks with their hands in the till.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pentagon-audit-2666415734/
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4992913-pentagon- fails-7th-audit-in-a-row-but-says-progress-made/
Honest and competent are not words anyone would use as
regards the hundreds of US government entities.
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d Trump
administration has so far been about average for efficiency
and honesty. I do have hope but I would not bet on it. The
thieving scheming one-worlder swamp will fight to the death
against both.
To policy, which is a different question, I'd rank a solid
B+. You would not. Meh.
Am 14.05.2025 um 14:08 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 13:10:16 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.05.2025 um 12:47 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 14:18:42 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment of,
say, a low experience drunken Fox network personality
would require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect
the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to
pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every possible
government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!)á in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a large
country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in any large
administation you'll be able to find examples of anything -
competence, incompetence, stupidity, brilliance. Isn't "we
have one of everything" one of your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let alone
competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving an
astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list
more, but I think the current administration is on its way
toward record incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
Krugowski's snipping is his cowardly method of avoiding issues he
can't deal with.
Can you please stop repeating the same accusations? Independent on
whether they are true or false, they are extremely boring.
Most accusations on Usenet are boring, including Krygowski's a few
lines up, especially the one about "Mr. Timid Tricyclist." I don't
think mine are any more boring than his.
Correct. The most boring aspect is turning a (semi-) meaningful
discussion into boring personal attacks. Please look in the above
quotes who first wrote a posting containing only personal attacks and
not forwarding the discussion.
On 5/14/2025 7:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 10:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
any of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own
carrier group (USS Truman) in the Biden
administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest
failure in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment
of, say, a low experience drunken Fox network
personality would require quite a bit of time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's
largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude
to pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every
possible government agency, firing then rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's
administrative incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!)á in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a
large country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in
any large administation you'll be able to find examples
of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of
your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let
alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is
giving an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I
could list more, but I think the current administration
is on its way toward record incompetence on multiple
fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your
thought processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a
brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-
we- rule-the- empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
of trimming posts. Of course "there are more." I won't
bother to dig for videos of Bush I saying "Read my lips:
No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in military costume to
proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should remember how
those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration:
ISTM the point of the article you linked is that there
really were countless thousands of people administering
it. It was a very different world in the 1800s, far less
complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large
numbers of administrators were at work, although perhaps
employed by colonies or local government, not central
government. You certainly can't pretend that any current
major nation can get by with a few thousand employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you
really think the Trump administration is as competent as
any other one in recent history? I don't, and the general
run of experts (including those working for Trump's first
administration) seem to rate this crew near the bottom of
the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty
to the wannabee king. That doesn't tend to bring in the
best people.
Larger Empire with more people and spread out uniquely world
wide, all run with written correspondence, paper ledgers, no
calculators and yet still in the thousands not millions. Add
in a very good score for lack of inflation, a gold-solid
value for Sterling and excellent growth. Hard to beat their
record.
One might argue, and I will, that the administrations of
Victoria's Empire was greatly more effective and efficient
than any barnacle encrusted modern state, full of
apparatchiks with their hands in the till.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pentagon-audit-2666415734/
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4992913-pentagon-
fails-7th-audit-in-a-row-but-says-progress-made/
Honest and competent are not words anyone would use as
regards the hundreds of US government entities.
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d Trump
administration has so far been about average for efficiency
and honesty. I do have hope but I would not bet on it.á The
thieving scheming one-worlder swamp will fight to the death
against both.
To policy, which is a different question, I'd rank a solid
B+. You would not. Meh.
n.b. The Pentagon link from the prior administration above
reflects a consistent pernicious series of failures spanning
several administrations, including the 1st Trump term, going
back decades. It is not a temporal anomaly.
On 5/14/2025 5:47 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 14:18:42 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment of,
say, a low experience drunken Fox network personality
would require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect
the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to
pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every possible
government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!)á in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a large
country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in any large
administation you'll be able to find examples of anything -
competence, incompetence, stupidity, brilliance. Isn't "we
have one of everything" one of your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let alone
competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving an
astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list
more, but I think the current administration is on its way
toward record incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
Krugowski's snipping is his cowardly method of avoiding issues he
can't deal with. I also note that when Krygowski cannot convince
people to agree with him, which is often, he'll try to put the
disagreement burden on his opponents. His dishonest tactic is to
demand that the unconvinced people state their position, and then,
ultimately, he'll demand that they defend it. It's what losers do when
their arguments fail.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
More charitably, snipping is common for better readability.
And, as I noted yesterday, one man's crucial point is
another's meaningless trivia.
On Wed, 14 May 2025 08:03:32 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/14/2025 7:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 10:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
any of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own
carrier group (USS Truman) in the Biden
administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest
failure in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment
of, say, a low experience drunken Fox network
personality would require quite a bit of time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's
largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude
to pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every
possible government agency, firing then rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's
administrative incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!) in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a
large country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in
any large administation you'll be able to find examples
of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of
your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let
alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is
giving an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I
could list more, but I think the current administration
is on its way toward record incompetence on multiple
fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your
thought processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a
brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-
we- rule-the- empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
of trimming posts. Of course "there are more." I won't
bother to dig for videos of Bush I saying "Read my lips:
No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in military costume to
proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should remember how
those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration:
ISTM the point of the article you linked is that there
really were countless thousands of people administering
it. It was a very different world in the 1800s, far less
complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large
numbers of administrators were at work, although perhaps
employed by colonies or local government, not central
government. You certainly can't pretend that any current
major nation can get by with a few thousand employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you
really think the Trump administration is as competent as
any other one in recent history? I don't, and the general
run of experts (including those working for Trump's first
administration) seem to rate this crew near the bottom of
the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty
to the wannabee king. That doesn't tend to bring in the
best people.
Larger Empire with more people and spread out uniquely world
wide, all run with written correspondence, paper ledgers, no
calculators and yet still in the thousands not millions. Add
in a very good score for lack of inflation, a gold-solid
value for Sterling and excellent growth. Hard to beat their
record.
One might argue, and I will, that the administrations of
Victoria's Empire was greatly more effective and efficient
than any barnacle encrusted modern state, full of
apparatchiks with their hands in the till.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pentagon-audit-2666415734/
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4992913-pentagon-
fails-7th-audit-in-a-row-but-says-progress-made/
Honest and competent are not words anyone would use as
regards the hundreds of US government entities.
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d Trump
administration has so far been about average for efficiency
and honesty. I do have hope but I would not bet on it. The
thieving scheming one-worlder swamp will fight to the death
against both.
To policy, which is a different question, I'd rank a solid
B+. You would not. Meh.
n.b. The Pentagon link from the prior administration above
reflects a consistent pernicious series of failures spanning
several administrations, including the 1st Trump term, going
back decades. It is not a temporal anomaly.
I understand that Trump had negotiated some tariff agreements with
China in his first term. He, and the Republican mouthpieces are
claiming that Biden didn't enforce them sufficiently, but they did
bring in revenue.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/14/2025 5:47 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 14:18:42 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment of,
say, a low experience drunken Fox network personality
would require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect
the competence of the world's largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to
pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every possible
government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!) in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a large
country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in any large
administation you'll be able to find examples of anything -
competence, incompetence, stupidity, brilliance. Isn't "we
have one of everything" one of your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let alone
competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving an
astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list
more, but I think the current administration is on its way
toward record incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
Krugowski's snipping is his cowardly method of avoiding issues he
can't deal with. I also note that when Krygowski cannot convince
people to agree with him, which is often, he'll try to put the
disagreement burden on his opponents. His dishonest tactic is to
demand that the unconvinced people state their position, and then,
ultimately, he'll demand that they defend it. It's what losers do when
their arguments fail.
On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of trimming
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy budget
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad >>>>>>>> examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to >>>>>>>>> hide from discussing the current administration's crazy
incompetence. What a dupe.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS >>>>>>>> Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow >>>>>>>> vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d >>>>>>>> Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft- carrier- red-sea- >>>>>>>> lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? >>>>>>> I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience
drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit of time to >>>>>>> noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest military. >>>>>>>
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in >>>>>>> other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away
randomly at every possible government agency, firing then rehiring >>>>>>> hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's administrative >>>>>>> incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments (not >>>>>> only US Federal government!) in every administration. Hayek
brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large bureaucracies, by >>>>>> their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large institution, and >>>>> a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt there are >>>>> any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able to find >>>>> examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your talking
points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The unproductive
chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems unique in >>>>> our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully >>>>> sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving >>>>> an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list more, but I >>>>> think the current administration is on its way toward record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission creep' outside >>>> lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig for videos of
Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in
military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should
remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration: ISTM the point
of the article you linked is that there really were countless thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different world in the 1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers of
administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by colonies or
local government, not central government. You certainly can't pretend
that any current major nation can get by with a few thousand employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you really think
the Trump administration is as competent as any other one in recent
history? I don't, and the general run of experts (including those
working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate this crew near
the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to the wannabee >>> king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, military enlistment
is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You left out some very good news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts-topped-16-billion-in- april-a-record-that-helped-cut-the-budget-deficit.html
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year deficit but it's the
first time in decades. Let's hope for more. Mr Jackson eliminated the
entire national debt, and he was just some hick from Tennessee without a Wharton MBA.
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d Trump
administration has so far been about average for efficiency and honesty.
On 5/14/2025 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of trimming
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy budget >>>>> and a slim staff.
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad >>>>>>>>> examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to >>>>>>>>>> hide from discussing the current administration's crazy
incompetence. What a dupe.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS >>>>>>>>> Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow >>>>>>>>> vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d >>>>>>>>> Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft- carrier- red-sea- >>>>>>>>> lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? >>>>>>>> I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience
drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit of time to >>>>>>>> noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest military. >>>>>>>>
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in >>>>>>>> other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away >>>>>>>> randomly at every possible government agency, firing then rehiring >>>>>>>> hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's administrative >>>>>>>> incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments (not >>>>>>> only US Federal government!)á in every administration. Hayek
brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large bureaucracies, by >>>>>>> their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large institution, and >>>>>> a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt there are >>>>>> any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able to find >>>>>> examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your talking
points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The unproductive >>>>>> chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems unique in >>>>>> our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully >>>>>> sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving >>>>>> an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list more, but I >>>>>> think the current administration is on its way toward record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission creep' outside >>>>> lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig for videos of >>>> Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in
military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should
remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration: ISTM the point >>>> of the article you linked is that there really were countless thousands >>>> of people administering it. It was a very different world in the 1800s, >>>> far less complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers of
administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by colonies or
local government, not central government. You certainly can't pretend
that any current major nation can get by with a few thousand employees! >>>>
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you really think
the Trump administration is as competent as any other one in recent
history? I don't, and the general run of experts (including those
working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate this crew near
the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to the wannabee >>>> king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, military enlistment
is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You left out some very good news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts-topped-16-billion-in-
april-a-record-that-helped-cut-the-budget-deficit.html
Hmm. Import duties or tariffs were raised. And son of a gun, import duty >receipts increased! It's almost as if simple cause and effect still
operates!
But we have yet to see the actual overall effects. Consumer prices going
up? Companies dealing with tangled and delayed supply chains?
International trade shifting away from the U.S.? Most who are
knowledgeable are expecting those and worse, not some miraculous surge
in prosperity here. We'll see.
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year deficit but it's the
first time in decades. Let's hope for more. Mr Jackson eliminated the
entire national debt, and he was just some hick from Tennessee without a
Wharton MBA.
Between the British Empire and Jackson, you have a real infatuation with
the 1800s. But the world has moved on in many ways. I think 1800s
strategies have little likelihood of working today.
On 5/14/2025 8:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d Trump
administration has so far been about average for efficiency and honesty.
Proof that, as you've said, people see what they want to see!
On 5/14/2025 8:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d
Trump administration has so far been about average for
efficiency and honesty.
Proof that, as you've said, people see what they want to see!
On 5/14/2025 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to
hide from discussing the current administration's
crazy
incompetence. What a dupe.
any of myriad
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own
carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one
from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in
May.) in the 2d
Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration?
I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low
experience
drunken Fox network personality would require quite
a bit of time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's
largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber
dude to pull in
other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications,
to hack away
randomly at every possible government agency, firing
then rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's
administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not
only US Federal government!) in every
administration. Hayek
brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large
bureaucracies, by
their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and
a very large administration to run a large country. I
doubt there are
any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll
be able to find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence,
stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of
your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive
chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys
seems unique in
our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks
Kennedy is fully
sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!"
crew is giving
an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could
list more, but I
think the current administration is on its way toward
record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your
thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown
suit"?
skimpy budget
and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-
we-rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to
'mission creep' outside
lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
etiquette of trimming
posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig
for videos of
Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II
dolled up in
military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but
we should
remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration:
ISTM the point
of the article you linked is that there really were
countless thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different
world in the 1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place with
far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large
numbers of
administrators were at work, although perhaps employed
by colonies or
local government, not central government. You certainly
can't pretend
that any current major nation can get by with a few
thousand employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you
really think
the Trump administration is as competent as any other
one in recent
history? I don't, and the general run of experts
(including those
working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate
this crew near
the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty
to the wannabee
king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the
leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border
is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are
being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned,
military enlistment
is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You left out some very good news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts-topped-16-
billion-in- april-a-record-that-helped-cut-the-budget-
deficit.html
Hmm. Import duties or tariffs were raised. And son of a gun,
import duty receipts increased! It's almost as if simple
cause and effect still operates!
But we have yet to see the actual overall effects. Consumer
prices going up? Companies dealing with tangled and delayed
supply chains? International trade shifting away from the
U.S.? Most who are knowledgeable are expecting those and
worse, not some miraculous surge in prosperity here. We'll see.
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year deficit
but it's the first time in decades. Let's hope for more.
Mr Jackson eliminated the entire national debt, and he was
just some hick from Tennessee without a Wharton MBA.
Between the British Empire and Jackson, you have a real
infatuation with the 1800s. But the world has moved on in
many ways. I think 1800s strategies have little likelihood
of working today.
On 5/14/2025 2:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d Trump
administration has so far been about average for efficiency and honesty.
Proof that, as you've said, people see what they want to see!
Border's closed. That's not nothing.
On 5/14/2025 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of trimming >>>>> posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig for videos of >>>>> Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy budget >>>>>> and a slim staff.
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad >>>>>>>>>> examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to >>>>>>>>>>> hide from discussing the current administration's crazy
incompetence. What a dupe.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group >>>>>>>>>> (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow >>>>>>>>>> vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d >>>>>>>>>> Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft- carrier- >>>>>>>>>> red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? >>>>>>>>> I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience >>>>>>>>> drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit of >>>>>>>>> time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest military. >>>>>>>>>
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in >>>>>>>>> other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away >>>>>>>>> randomly at every possible government agency, firing then rehiring >>>>>>>>> hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's administrative >>>>>>>>> incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments (not >>>>>>>> only US Federal government!) in every administration. Hayek
brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large
bureaucracies, by
their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and
a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt there >>>>>>> are
any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able to >>>>>>> find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your talking >>>>>>> points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The unproductive >>>>>>> chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems
unique in
our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is
fully
sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is
giving
an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list more, >>>>>>> but I
think the current administration is on its way toward record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did- we-rule-the- >>>>>> empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission creep'
outside
lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should
remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration: ISTM the
point
of the article you linked is that there really were countless
thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different world in the
1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers of
administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by colonies or >>>>> local government, not central government. You certainly can't pretend >>>>> that any current major nation can get by with a few thousand
employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you really think >>>>> the Trump administration is as competent as any other one in recent
history? I don't, and the general run of experts (including those
working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate this crew near >>>>> the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to the
wannabee
king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, military enlistment
is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You left out some very good news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts-topped-16- billion-
in- april-a-record-that-helped-cut-the-budget- deficit.html
Hmm. Import duties or tariffs were raised. And son of a gun, import
duty receipts increased! It's almost as if simple cause and effect
still operates!
But we have yet to see the actual overall effects. Consumer prices
going up? Companies dealing with tangled and delayed supply chains?
International trade shifting away from the U.S.? Most who are
knowledgeable are expecting those and worse, not some miraculous surge
in prosperity here. We'll see.
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year deficit but it's
the first time in decades. Let's hope for more. Mr Jackson eliminated
the entire national debt, and he was just some hick from Tennessee
without a Wharton MBA.
Between the British Empire and Jackson, you have a real infatuation
with the 1800s. But the world has moved on in many ways. I think 1800s
strategies have little likelihood of working today.
Liberty and small honest government never go out of style.
Yes trade is in tumult. As I wrote last week, the situation is as yet in flux. I'll wait before panicking.
General inflation is at the lowest point since spring 2021.
On 5/14/2025 6:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d
Trump administration has so far been about average for
efficiency and honesty.
Proof that, as you've said, people see what they want to
see!
Border's closed. That's not nothing.
with intended or unintended consequences?
https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/05/15/vermont-canada-library- town-trump-border
On 5/14/2025 6:47 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration.
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go.
It allows him to
hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy
incompetence. What a dupe.
Select any of myriad
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own
carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one
from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in
May.) in the 2d
Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration?
I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low
experience
drunken Fox network personality would require
quite a bit of time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's
largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber
dude to pull in
other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications,
to hack away
randomly at every possible government agency,
firing then rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's
administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not
only US Federal government!) in every
administration. Hayek
brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large
bureaucracies, by
their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a
large institution, and
a very large administration to run a large country.
I doubt there are
any exceptions. And in any large administation
you'll be able to find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence,
stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of
your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal.
The unproductive
chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy
boys seems unique in
our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks
Kennedy is fully
sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary
Emails!!!" crew is giving
an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I
could list more, but I
think the current administration is on its way
toward record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your
thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown
suit"?
a skimpy budget
and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-
did- we-rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to
'mission creep' outside
lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
etiquette of trimming
posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to
dig for videos of
Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II
dolled up in
military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished"
but we should
remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire
administration: ISTM the point
of the article you linked is that there really were
countless thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different
world in the 1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place with
far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large
numbers of
administrators were at work, although perhaps employed
by colonies or
local government, not central government. You
certainly can't pretend
that any current major nation can get by with a few
thousand employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do
you really think
the Trump administration is as competent as any other
one in recent
history? I don't, and the general run of experts
(including those
working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate
this crew near
the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously,
fealty to the wannabee
king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the
leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border
is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs
are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned,
military enlistment
is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You left out some very good news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts-
topped-16- billion- in- april-a-record-that-helped-cut-
the-budget- deficit.html
Hmm. Import duties or tariffs were raised. And son of a
gun, import duty receipts increased! It's almost as if
simple cause and effect still operates!
But we have yet to see the actual overall effects.
Consumer prices going up? Companies dealing with tangled
and delayed supply chains? International trade shifting
away from the U.S.? Most who are knowledgeable are
expecting those and worse, not some miraculous surge in
prosperity here. We'll see.
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year
deficit but it's the first time in decades. Let's hope
for more. Mr Jackson eliminated the entire national
debt, and he was just some hick from Tennessee without a
Wharton MBA.
Between the British Empire and Jackson, you have a real
infatuation with the 1800s. But the world has moved on in
many ways. I think 1800s strategies have little
likelihood of working today.
Liberty and small honest government never go out of style.
Yes trade is in tumult. As I wrote last week, the
situation is as yet in flux. I'll wait before panicking.
General inflation is at the lowest point since spring 2021.
Yup, seems to be following a trend since the peak in 2021
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-
inflation-rates/
(let's not pretend the rate wasn't already well-managed
before trump was elected. That maga spunk works on people
like kunich and the floriduh dumbass, you're way too smart
and aware to be suckered in by that propaganda.)
On 5/15/2025 7:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/14/2025 6:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d Trump
administration has so far been about average for efficiency and
honesty.
Proof that, as you've said, people see what they want to see!
Border's closed. That's not nothing.
with intended or unintended consequences?
https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/05/15/vermont-canada-library- town-
trump-border
And an open border had no deleterious consequences?? It broke the
budgets of major cities plus the carnage, mayhem, rapes and thefts.
Every policy is a choice and for every yes to one guy it's no to another.
Then again:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/fighting- overcriminalization-in-federal-regulations/
and I can list other victories all day long. Some of which will
disappoint you I'm sure.
p.s. Regarding inflation, which is a tax, and most brutally applied to
lower classes, nothing about the Federal Reserve's "2% target" should
be aceeptable. Zero is a nice round number and is actually attainable.
We did it when currencies were backed by actual gold rather than an 'inflation target'.
On 5/15/2025 10:02 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/15/2025 7:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/14/2025 6:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d
Trump administration has so far been about average for
efficiency and honesty.
Proof that, as you've said, people see what they want
to see!
Border's closed. That's not nothing.
with intended or unintended consequences?
https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/05/15/vermont-canada-
library- town- trump-border
And an open border had no deleterious consequences?? It
broke the budgets of major cities plus the carnage,
mayhem, rapes and thefts. Every policy is a choice and for
every yes to one guy it's no to another.
Sure, the Derby Line Library Sex and Drug syndicate crime
spree was reported far and wide. <eyeroll>
Do we need to go into the statics of the rates of felonies
committed by US citizens vs immigrants?
The "immigrant rapist and murderer" narrative is a ruse.
Then again:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/
fighting- overcriminalization-in-federal-regulations/
and I can list other victories all day long. Some of which
will disappoint you I'm sure.
And we can list egregious constitutional violations against
legal residents all day long, some of which will delight you
I'm sure.
On 5/15/2025 10:02 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/15/2025 7:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/14/2025 6:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d
Trump administration has so far been about average for
efficiency and honesty.
Proof that, as you've said, people see what they want
to see!
Border's closed. That's not nothing.
with intended or unintended consequences?
https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/05/15/vermont-canada-
library- town- trump-border
And an open border had no deleterious consequences?? It
broke the budgets of major cities plus the carnage,
mayhem, rapes and thefts. Every policy is a choice and for
every yes to one guy it's no to another.
Sure, the Derby Line Library Sex and Drug syndicate crime
spree was reported far and wide. <eyeroll>
Do we need to go into the statics of the rates of felonies
committed by US citizens vs immigrants?
The "immigrant rapist and murderer" narrative is a ruse.
Then again:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/
fighting- overcriminalization-in-federal-regulations/
and I can list other victories all day long. Some of which
will disappoint you I'm sure.
And we can list egregious constitutional violations against
legal residents all day long, some of which will delight you
I'm sure.
Am 15.05.2025 um 16:06 schrieb AMuzi:
p.s. Regarding inflation, which is a tax, and most
brutally applied to lower classes, nothing about the
Federal Reserve's "2% target" should be aceeptable. Zero
is a nice round number and is actually attainable. We did
it when currencies were backed by actual gold rather than
an 'inflation target'.
An economy without inflation is an economy with a throttled
money supply; you probably prefer to live in a modern
economy with a bit of inflation as a drop of oil in the
workings (similar to a bike chain, dripping in oil is as bad
a no oil at all).
For the impact of throttled money supply, just read books
about the British economy in the decades after they had to
pay for Richard Lionheart's ransom.
Rolf
On 5/14/2025 6:47 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of trimming >>>>>> posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig for videos of >>>>>> Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in >>>>>> military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy budget >>>>>>> and a slim staff.
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad >>>>>>>>>>> examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to >>>>>>>>>>>> hide from discussing the current administration's crazy >>>>>>>>>>>> incompetence. What a dupe.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group >>>>>>>>>>> (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow >>>>>>>>>>> vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d >>>>>>>>>>> Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft- carrier- >>>>>>>>>>> red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? >>>>>>>>>> I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience >>>>>>>>>> drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit of >>>>>>>>>> time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest military. >>>>>>>>>>
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in >>>>>>>>>> other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away >>>>>>>>>> randomly at every possible government agency, firing then rehiring >>>>>>>>>> hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's administrative >>>>>>>>>> incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments (not >>>>>>>>> only US Federal government!)á in every administration. Hayek >>>>>>>>> brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large
bureaucracies, by
their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and
a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt there >>>>>>>> are
any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able to >>>>>>>> find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your talking >>>>>>>> points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The unproductive >>>>>>>> chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems
unique in
our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is >>>>>>>> fully
sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is >>>>>>>> giving
an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list more, >>>>>>>> but I
think the current administration is on its way toward record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did- we-rule-the- >>>>>>> empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission creep'
outside
lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration: ISTM the
point
of the article you linked is that there really were countless
thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different world in the
1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler >>>>>> technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers of
administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by colonies or >>>>>> local government, not central government. You certainly can't pretend >>>>>> that any current major nation can get by with a few thousand
employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you really think >>>>>> the Trump administration is as competent as any other one in recent >>>>>> history? I don't, and the general run of experts (including those
working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate this crew near >>>>>> the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to the
wannabee
king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media and >>>>> fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now locked >>>>> up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, military enlistment >>>>> is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You left out some very good news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts-topped-16- billion-
in- april-a-record-that-helped-cut-the-budget- deficit.html
Hmm. Import duties or tariffs were raised. And son of a gun, import
duty receipts increased! It's almost as if simple cause and effect
still operates!
But we have yet to see the actual overall effects. Consumer prices
going up? Companies dealing with tangled and delayed supply chains?
International trade shifting away from the U.S.? Most who are
knowledgeable are expecting those and worse, not some miraculous surge
in prosperity here. We'll see.
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year deficit but it's
the first time in decades. Let's hope for more. Mr Jackson eliminated
the entire national debt, and he was just some hick from Tennessee
without a Wharton MBA.
Between the British Empire and Jackson, you have a real infatuation
with the 1800s. But the world has moved on in many ways. I think 1800s
strategies have little likelihood of working today.
Liberty and small honest government never go out of style.
Yes trade is in tumult. As I wrote last week, the situation is as yet in
flux. I'll wait before panicking.
General inflation is at the lowest point since spring 2021.
Yup, seems to be following a trend since the peak in 2021
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/
(let's not pretend the rate wasn't already well-managed before trump was >elected. That maga spunk works on people like kunich and the floriduh >dumbass, you're way too smart and aware to be suckered in by that >propaganda.)
On 5/15/2025 9:26 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 15.05.2025 um 16:06 schrieb AMuzi:
p.s. Regarding inflation, which is a tax, and most brutally
applied to lower classes, nothing about the Federal Reserve's
"2% target" should be aceeptable. Zero is a nice round number
and is actually attainable. We did it when currencies were
backed by actual gold rather than an 'inflation target'.
An economy without inflation is an economy with a throttled money
supply; you probably prefer to live in a modern economy with a bit
of inflation as a drop of oil in the workings (similar to a bike
chain, dripping in oil is as bad a no oil at all).
For the impact of throttled money supply, just read books about
the British economy in the decades after they had to pay for
Richard Lionheart's ransom.
Rolf
That's true. And Sterling value plunged in 1920 after The Great War
with their refusal to devalue willingly after the wartime currency
increases.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5948/economics/uk-economy-in-
the-1920s/
Followed by a deflation which is no better than inflation and amid
many other troubles; monetary, economic and social.
Let us not forget that inflation can and has induced self-
perpetuating price spirals which have devastated many nations at
many times.
Still and all, there are good arguments to be made:
https://www.clevelandfed.org/-/media/project/clevelandfedtenant/ clevelandfedsite/publications/economic-commentary/1988/ec-19880915-
the- case-for-zero-inflation-pdf.pdf
On 5/15/2025 9:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/15/2025 10:02 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/15/2025 7:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/14/2025 6:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d Trump
administration has so far been about average for efficiency and
honesty.
Proof that, as you've said, people see what they want to see!
Border's closed. That's not nothing.
with intended or unintended consequences?
https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/05/15/vermont-canada- library- town-
trump-border
And an open border had no deleterious consequences?? It broke the
budgets of major cities plus the carnage, mayhem, rapes and thefts.
Every policy is a choice and for every yes to one guy it's no to
another.
Sure, the Derby Line Library Sex and Drug syndicate crime spree was
reported far and wide. <eyeroll>
Do we need to go into the statics of the rates of felonies committed
by US citizens vs immigrants?
The "immigrant rapist and murderer" narrative is a ruse.
Then again:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/ fighting-
overcriminalization-in-federal-regulations/
and I can list other victories all day long. Some of which will
disappoint you I'm sure.
And we can list egregious constitutional violations against legal
residents all day long, some of which will delight you I'm sure.
Purposeful distraction, that.
Much is spewed about US citizen crime rate vs 'immigrant' rate. This has always been a favorable ratio for Resident Aliens, such as all four of
my grandparents. For one thing, their resident status can be revoked:
https://citizenpath.com/lose-permanent-resident-status/
Lawful immigrants have something to lose. And behave accordingly.
Illegals, OTOH skew to people who could not ever qualify for a Green Card:
https://nypost.com/2025/05/02/us-news/shocking-data-details-nyc-illegal- migrant-crime-with-3-2k-arrests-including-assault-robbery-murder/
https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2025/03/26/chicagos-illegal- immigration-nightmare/
On 5/15/2025 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/15/2025 9:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/15/2025 10:02 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/15/2025 7:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/14/2025 6:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the
2d Trump administration has so far been about
average for efficiency and honesty.
Proof that, as you've said, people see what they want
to see!
Border's closed. That's not nothing.
with intended or unintended consequences?
https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/05/15/vermont-canada-
library- town- trump-border
And an open border had no deleterious consequences?? It
broke the budgets of major cities plus the carnage,
mayhem, rapes and thefts. Every policy is a choice and
for every yes to one guy it's no to another.
Sure, the Derby Line Library Sex and Drug syndicate crime
spree was reported far and wide. <eyeroll>
Do we need to go into the statics of the rates of
felonies committed by US citizens vs immigrants?
The "immigrant rapist and murderer" narrative is a ruse.
Then again:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/
fighting- overcriminalization-in-federal-regulations/
and I can list other victories all day long. Some of
which will disappoint you I'm sure.
And we can list egregious constitutional violations
against legal residents all day long, some of which will
delight you I'm sure.
Purposeful distraction, that.
No, the distraction is that immigrants (illegal or not) are
responsible for the majority of crime in this country. They
aren't. >
Much is spewed about US citizen crime rate vs 'immigrant'
rate. This has always been a favorable ratio for Resident
Aliens, such as all four of my grandparents. For one
thing, their resident status can be revoked:
https://citizenpath.com/lose-permanent-resident-status/
Lawful immigrants have something to lose. And behave
accordingly.
Illegals, OTOH skew to people who could not ever qualify
for a Green Card:
https://nypost.com/2025/05/02/us-news/shocking-data-
details-nyc-illegal- migrant-crime-with-3-2k-arrests-
including-assault-robbery-murder/
https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2025/03/26/chicagos-
illegal- immigration-nightmare/
Long on rhetoric, fear mongering, and outliers.
On 5/15/2025 7:30 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/14/2025 6:47 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Hmm. Import duties or tariffs were raised. And son of a gun, import
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy >>>>>>>> budget
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of >>>>>>>>>>>> myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows >>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
hide from discussing the current administration's crazy >>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetence. What a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier >>>>>>>>>>>> group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d >>>>>>>>>>>> Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft- carrier- >>>>>>>>>>>> red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration?
I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience >>>>>>>>>>> drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit of >>>>>>>>>>> time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest
military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to >>>>>>>>>>> pull in
other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away >>>>>>>>>>> randomly at every possible government agency, firing then >>>>>>>>>>> rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's
administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments >>>>>>>>>> (not
only US Federal government!) in every administration. Hayek >>>>>>>>>> brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large
bureaucracies, by
their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and
a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt
there are
any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able >>>>>>>>> to find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your
talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The unproductive >>>>>>>>> chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems
unique in
our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is >>>>>>>>> fully
sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is >>>>>>>>> giving
an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list
more, but I
think the current administration is on its way toward record >>>>>>>>> incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought >>>>>>>>> processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government- did- we-
rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission creep' >>>>>>>> outside
lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
trimming
posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig for
videos of
Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in >>>>>>> military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should >>>>>>> remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration: ISTM the >>>>>>> point
of the article you linked is that there really were countless
thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different world in the >>>>>>> 1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler >>>>>>> technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers of
administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by
colonies or
local government, not central government. You certainly can't
pretend
that any current major nation can get by with a few thousand
employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you really
think
the Trump administration is as competent as any other one in recent >>>>>>> history? I don't, and the general run of experts (including those >>>>>>> working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate this crew >>>>>>> near
the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to the
wannabee
king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media and >>>>>> fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now locked >>>>>> up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, military enlistment >>>>>> is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You left out some very good news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts- topped-16-
billion- in- april-a-record-that-helped-cut- the-budget- deficit.html >>>>
duty receipts increased! It's almost as if simple cause and effect
still operates!
But we have yet to see the actual overall effects. Consumer prices
going up? Companies dealing with tangled and delayed supply chains?
International trade shifting away from the U.S.? Most who are
knowledgeable are expecting those and worse, not some miraculous
surge in prosperity here. We'll see.
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year deficit but it's
the first time in decades. Let's hope for more. Mr Jackson
eliminated the entire national debt, and he was just some hick from
Tennessee without a Wharton MBA.
Between the British Empire and Jackson, you have a real infatuation
with the 1800s. But the world has moved on in many ways. I think
1800s strategies have little likelihood of working today.
Liberty and small honest government never go out of style.
Yes trade is in tumult. As I wrote last week, the situation is as yet
in flux. I'll wait before panicking.
General inflation is at the lowest point since spring 2021.
Yup, seems to be following a trend since the peak in 2021
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current- inflation-rates/
(let's not pretend the rate wasn't already well-managed before trump
was elected. That maga spunk works on people like kunich and the
floriduh dumbass, you're way too smart and aware to be suckered in by
that propaganda.)
Yes you are correct. My response was to Mr Krygowski's question,
"Consumer prices going up?". They are technically but at a very low rate.
p.s. Regarding inflation, which is a tax, and most brutally applied toAh, _those_ were the days! The good old 1800s! Is there an actual
lower classes, nothing about the Federal Reserve's "2% target" should
be aceeptable. Zero is a nice round number and is actually attainable.
We did it when currencies were backed by actual gold rather than an 'inflation target'.
On 5/15/2025 10:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/15/2025 7:30 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/14/2025 6:47 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration.
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go.
It allows him to
hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy
incompetence. What a dupe.
Select any of myriad
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own
carrier group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard
(one from sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in
May.) in the 2d
Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-
aircraft- carrier- red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an
executive administration?
I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a
low experience
drunken Fox network personality would require
quite a bit of time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's
largest military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced
cyber dude to pull in
other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away
randomly at every possible government agency,
firing then rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers?
That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence'
pervades governments (not
only US Federal government!) in every
administration. Hayek
brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of
large bureaucracies, by
their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a
large institution, and
a very large administration to run a large
country. I doubt there are
any exceptions. And in any large administation
you'll be able to find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence,
stupidity,
brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one
of your talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal.
The unproductive
chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy
boys seems unique in
our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist
thinks Kennedy is fully
sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary
Emails!!!" crew is giving
an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I
could list more, but I
think the current administration is on its way
toward record
incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about
your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a
brown suit"?
with a skimpy budget
and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-
did- we- rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to
'mission creep' outside
lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
etiquette of trimming
posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to
dig for videos of
Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush
II dolled up in
military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished"
but we should
remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire
administration: ISTM the point
of the article you linked is that there really were
countless thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different
world in the 1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place
with far simpler
technology; and the article seems to say that large
numbers of
administrators were at work, although perhaps
employed by colonies or
local government, not central government. You
certainly can't pretend
that any current major nation can get by with a few
thousand employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do
you really think
the Trump administration is as competent as any
other one in recent
history? I don't, and the general run of experts
(including those
working for Trump's first administration) seem to
rate this crew near
the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously,
fealty to the wannabee
king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the
leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the
border is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs
are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned,
military enlistment
is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are
slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports
activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You left out some very good news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts-
topped-16- billion- in- april-a-record-that-helped-
cut- the-budget- deficit.html
Hmm. Import duties or tariffs were raised. And son of a
gun, import duty receipts increased! It's almost as if
simple cause and effect still operates!
But we have yet to see the actual overall effects.
Consumer prices going up? Companies dealing with
tangled and delayed supply chains? International trade
shifting away from the U.S.? Most who are knowledgeable
are expecting those and worse, not some miraculous
surge in prosperity here. We'll see.
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year
deficit but it's the first time in decades. Let's hope
for more. Mr Jackson eliminated the entire national
debt, and he was just some hick from Tennessee without
a Wharton MBA.
Between the British Empire and Jackson, you have a real
infatuation with the 1800s. But the world has moved on
in many ways. I think 1800s strategies have little
likelihood of working today.
Liberty and small honest government never go out of style.
Yes trade is in tumult. As I wrote last week, the
situation is as yet in flux. I'll wait before panicking.
General inflation is at the lowest point since spring 2021.
Yup, seems to be following a trend since the peak in 2021
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-
inflation-rates/
(let's not pretend the rate wasn't already well-managed
before trump was elected. That maga spunk works on people
like kunich and the floriduh dumbass, you're way too
smart and aware to be suckered in by that propaganda.)
Yes you are correct. My response was to Mr Krygowski's
question, "Consumer prices going up?". They are
technically but at a very low rate.
It should have been clear that I was speculating about the
future effects of increased tariffs. And that speculation is
in line with almost every professional economist. How could
prices not rise?
Ah, _those_ were the days! The good old 1800s! Is there an
p.s. Regarding inflation, which is a tax, and most
brutally applied to lower classes, nothing about the
Federal Reserve's "2% target" should be aceeptable. Zero
is a nice round number and is actually attainable. We did
it when currencies were backed by actual gold rather than
an 'inflation target'.
actual campaign to return to the gold standard? And hey,
steam automobiles! Coal furnaces for homes!
(Damn, I thought _I_ was a retrogrouch!)
On 5/15/2025 9:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2025 10:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/15/2025 7:30 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/14/2025 6:47 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of >>>>>>>>> trimming
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy >>>>>>>>>> budget
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
hide from discussing the current administration's crazy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetence. What a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2d
Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy- aircraft- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> carrier- red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration?
I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience >>>>>>>>>>>>> drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit >>>>>>>>>>>>> of time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest >>>>>>>>>>>>> military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to >>>>>>>>>>>>> pull in
other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack >>>>>>>>>>>>> away
randomly at every possible government agency, firing then >>>>>>>>>>>>> rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's
administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not
only US Federal government!) in every administration. Hayek >>>>>>>>>>>> brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large
bureaucracies, by
their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and
a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt >>>>>>>>>>> there are
any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able >>>>>>>>>>> to find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity, >>>>>>>>>>> brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your >>>>>>>>>>> talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive
chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems >>>>>>>>>>> unique in
our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy >>>>>>>>>>> is fully
sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew >>>>>>>>>>> is giving
an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list >>>>>>>>>>> more, but I
think the current administration is on its way toward record >>>>>>>>>>> incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought >>>>>>>>>>> processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"? >>>>>>>>>>>
and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government- did- we- >>>>>>>>>> rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside
lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig for >>>>>>>>> videos of
Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in >>>>>>>>> military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should >>>>>>>>> remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration: ISTM >>>>>>>>> the point
of the article you linked is that there really were countless >>>>>>>>> thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different world in >>>>>>>>> the 1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler >>>>>>>>> technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers of >>>>>>>>> administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by
colonies or
local government, not central government. You certainly can't >>>>>>>>> pretend
that any current major nation can get by with a few thousand >>>>>>>>> employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you really >>>>>>>>> think
the Trump administration is as competent as any other one in >>>>>>>>> recent
history? I don't, and the general run of experts (including those >>>>>>>>> working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate this
crew near
the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to the >>>>>>>>> wannabee
king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist
media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now >>>>>>>> locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being >>>>>>>> renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, military
enlistment
is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You left out some very good news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts- topped-16-
billion- in- april-a-record-that-helped- cut- the-budget-
deficit.html
Hmm. Import duties or tariffs were raised. And son of a gun,
import duty receipts increased! It's almost as if simple cause and >>>>>> effect still operates!
But we have yet to see the actual overall effects. Consumer prices >>>>>> going up? Companies dealing with tangled and delayed supply
chains? International trade shifting away from the U.S.? Most who
are knowledgeable are expecting those and worse, not some
miraculous surge in prosperity here. We'll see.
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year deficit but
it's the first time in decades. Let's hope for more. Mr Jackson
eliminated the entire national debt, and he was just some hick
from Tennessee without a Wharton MBA.
Between the British Empire and Jackson, you have a real
infatuation with the 1800s. But the world has moved on in many
ways. I think 1800s strategies have little likelihood of working
today.
Liberty and small honest government never go out of style.
Yes trade is in tumult. As I wrote last week, the situation is as
yet in flux. I'll wait before panicking.
General inflation is at the lowest point since spring 2021.
Yup, seems to be following a trend since the peak in 2021
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current- inflation-
rates/
(let's not pretend the rate wasn't already well-managed before trump
was elected. That maga spunk works on people like kunich and the
floriduh dumbass, you're way too smart and aware to be suckered in
by that propaganda.)
Yes you are correct. My response was to Mr Krygowski's question,
"Consumer prices going up?". They are technically but at a very low
rate.
It should have been clear that I was speculating about the future
effects of increased tariffs. And that speculation is in line with
almost every professional economist. How could prices not rise?
Ah, _those_ were the days! The good old 1800s! Is there an actual
p.s. Regarding inflation, which is a tax, and most brutally applied
to lower classes, nothing about the Federal Reserve's "2% target"
should be aceeptable. Zero is a nice round number and is actually
attainable. We did it when currencies were backed by actual gold
rather than an 'inflation target'.
campaign to return to the gold standard? And hey, steam automobiles!
Coal furnaces for homes!
(Damn, I thought _I_ was a retrogrouch!)
The value of gold has not changed.
On 5/15/2025 9:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2025 10:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/15/2025 7:30 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/14/2025 6:47 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2025 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of >>>>>>>>> trimming
On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy >>>>>>>>>> budget
On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> myriad
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him to
hide from discussing the current administration's crazy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetence. What a dupe.
examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group (USS
Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sliding tow
vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2d
Trump administration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy- aircraft- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> carrier- red-sea-
lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
One never runs out of examples.
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration?
I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience >>>>>>>>>>>>> drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit >>>>>>>>>>>>> of time to
noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest >>>>>>>>>>>>> military.
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to >>>>>>>>>>>>> pull in
other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack >>>>>>>>>>>>> away
randomly at every possible government agency, firing then >>>>>>>>>>>>> rehiring
hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's
administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not
only US Federal government!) in every administration. Hayek >>>>>>>>>>>> brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large
bureaucracies, by
their nature, well before key exemplars were born!
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and
a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt >>>>>>>>>>> there are
any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able >>>>>>>>>>> to find
examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity, >>>>>>>>>>> brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your >>>>>>>>>>> talking points?
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive
chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems >>>>>>>>>>> unique in
our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy >>>>>>>>>>> is fully
sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew >>>>>>>>>>> is giving
an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list >>>>>>>>>>> more, but I
think the current administration is on its way toward record >>>>>>>>>>> incompetence on multiple fronts.
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought >>>>>>>>>>> processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"? >>>>>>>>>>>
and a slim staff.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government- did- we- >>>>>>>>>> rule-the-
empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside
lawful useful limits. As we see.
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.
posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig for >>>>>>>>> videos of
Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in >>>>>>>>> military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should >>>>>>>>> remember how those worked out.
And about the size of the British empire administration: ISTM >>>>>>>>> the point
of the article you linked is that there really were countless >>>>>>>>> thousands
of people administering it. It was a very different world in >>>>>>>>> the 1800s,
far less complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler >>>>>>>>> technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers of >>>>>>>>> administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by
colonies or
local government, not central government. You certainly can't >>>>>>>>> pretend
that any current major nation can get by with a few thousand >>>>>>>>> employees!
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you really >>>>>>>>> think
the Trump administration is as competent as any other one in >>>>>>>>> recent
history? I don't, and the general run of experts (including those >>>>>>>>> working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate this
crew near
the bottom of the curve.
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to the >>>>>>>>> wannabee
king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist
media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now >>>>>>>> locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being >>>>>>>> renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, military
enlistment
is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
You left out some very good news:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts- topped-16-
billion- in- april-a-record-that-helped- cut- the-budget-
deficit.html
Hmm. Import duties or tariffs were raised. And son of a gun,
import duty receipts increased! It's almost as if simple cause and >>>>>> effect still operates!
But we have yet to see the actual overall effects. Consumer prices >>>>>> going up? Companies dealing with tangled and delayed supply
chains? International trade shifting away from the U.S.? Most who
are knowledgeable are expecting those and worse, not some
miraculous surge in prosperity here. We'll see.
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year deficit but
it's the first time in decades. Let's hope for more. Mr Jackson
eliminated the entire national debt, and he was just some hick
from Tennessee without a Wharton MBA.
Between the British Empire and Jackson, you have a real
infatuation with the 1800s. But the world has moved on in many
ways. I think 1800s strategies have little likelihood of working
today.
Liberty and small honest government never go out of style.
Yes trade is in tumult. As I wrote last week, the situation is as
yet in flux. I'll wait before panicking.
General inflation is at the lowest point since spring 2021.
Yup, seems to be following a trend since the peak in 2021
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current- inflation-
rates/
(let's not pretend the rate wasn't already well-managed before trump
was elected. That maga spunk works on people like kunich and the
floriduh dumbass, you're way too smart and aware to be suckered in
by that propaganda.)
Yes you are correct. My response was to Mr Krygowski's question,
"Consumer prices going up?". They are technically but at a very low
rate.
It should have been clear that I was speculating about the future
effects of increased tariffs. And that speculation is in line with
almost every professional economist. How could prices not rise?
Ah, _those_ were the days! The good old 1800s! Is there an actual
p.s. Regarding inflation, which is a tax, and most brutally applied
to lower classes, nothing about the Federal Reserve's "2% target"
should be aceeptable. Zero is a nice round number and is actually
attainable. We did it when currencies were backed by actual gold
rather than an 'inflation target'.
campaign to return to the gold standard? And hey, steam automobiles!
Coal furnaces for homes!
(Damn, I thought _I_ was a retrogrouch!)
The value of gold has not changed. Here's the scorecard for US dollar degradation. One may click various time spans on the chart:
https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-year-chart
It's beyond ridiculous that a person's gender is so ambiguous that it
can be defined and altered simply by an undocumented proclamation.
We need a simple law that defines the terms "men," "women," and
"gender" in terms of chromosomes. I don't know if the jackasses in
Congress can do that, but I can hope.
FWIW, they can't do it in terms of genitalia because then they'd also
have to define and describe genitalia and that's not ever going to
happen.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 15:37:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/10/2025 6:04 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13660579/
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2023/03/31/6427441922601d3d1c8b45da.html
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497
I suspect the reason moderate Democrats and their cohorts in the media >>>> want to shut down any discussion of "transgender" athletes is that
they are ashamed of the far left wing of their party promoting the
ridiculous and unpopular nonsense of allowing men to compete in
women's athletics.
Fortunately, the practice seems to be on the wane, but only because of >>>> the voiced objectives about it. The issue needs to be openly discussed >>>> until it's totally abolished.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I agree but for general principles we ought to at least
consider the egregious incidents to form a rule.
As ever note the dates on these articles even the daily mail seems to be >> referencing older incidents.
And it s as ever the same people who show up.
I do think the Organisation do have lot to blame for this, by allowing to >> get so far when it was fairly obvious that this would happen and have flip >> flopped about.
Roger Merriman
Point is that it has happened, it still happening some places in the
USA, and there's people still advocating for it to continue.
Is it really still happening? Bar non competitive or stuff that is just a name and time.
College sports in US banned transgender athletes participating this year,
was sub 10 to be fair but even so still arguably the right choice.
All international sports bodies seem to have reached the same conclusion
and most national or regional bodies as this is cycling anything.
USA cycling does still do the must have low testosterone levels, and other organisations will differ in their approach, clearly some things are more
of event than a race where it?s much less of issue.
Regardless of US variables organisations if a race has to comply with the
UCI regulations transgender athletes are banned.
Mind you means Lance Armstrong can still race in the Leadville MTB race as he?s rather banned from the UCI events as you?d expect!
Could it be clearer and more consistent yes, but that?s seems to be an US
way of doing things so there you are! So for the USA it?s less yes or no
but it depends on the race and its organisation and its regulations.
https://maps.glsen.org/trans-and-nonbinary-athletic-inclusion-policies/
Out of date as above the college sports ban that came into effect this year for US.
